Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akhtar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla, Hirdesh
1 WA-466-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 466 of 2024
AKHTAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms.Sumanlata Tamrakar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla The present appeal is filed against the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by Single Judge in WP No.2974/2023. The appellants filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by Tehsildar under section 248 of MP Land Revenue Code treating the petitioner to be an encroacher and directed for removal of encroachment.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the predecessor of the appellants have filed a civil suit which finally culminated into second appeal no.320/1996 and the said second appeal was allowed by order dated 15.02.2008. While allowing the appeal, the court observed that the respondents shall be free to evict the plaintiffs by adopting due procedure as Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 08-08-2024 10:06:03 2 WA-466-2024 prescribed under the law.
Since the respondents were granted liberty to evict the plaintiffs by adopting due procedure under the law, and not the State authorities therefore the respondent/Tehsildar had no jurisdiction to pass the order under section 248 of MPLRC because the property was belonging to the temple, which was leased out the land in question to the predecessor of the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the Single Judge has not entertained the petition on the ground of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under section 44(1) of MPLRC and the petitioners were directed to file appeal within the period of 30 days from the date of order. It was further held that the limitation of filing of appeal shall not come in the way of the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the Single Judge, we do not find any error in the order. The Single Judge has not adverted to the merits of the case. The petition has been disposed off by directing the petitioners to file appeal within the period of 30 days and if the appeal is not filed within the aforesaid period, the question of limitation would not come in the way.
The submission of counsel for the appellant regarding the jurisdiction of the respondent to take action under section 248 of MPLRC can very well be raised in the appeal. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. However, the appellant is granted further 15 days time to file appeal in accordance with law and if the appeal is filed within the aforesaid period, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits and shall not dismiss it Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 08-08-2024 10:06:03 3 WA-466-2024 on the ground of limitation.
It would be open for the appellant to raise all the points before the appellate authority.
With the aforesaid observation, the present appeal stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 08-08-2024
10:06:03