Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shimla Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 WP-24685-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 24685 of 2021
(SMT. SHIMLA YADAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 15-11-2021
Shri S.K. Patel, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Johri, Panel Lawyer for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri Kapil Jain, counsel for the respondent No.4. Heard.
By the instant petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katni whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed upholding the order of the Tehsildar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on an application filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the authority has passed an order directing removal of boundary wall, which is said to have been raised over the land of respondent No.4. He submits that the authority cannot exercise the power under Section 248 of the Code in the case of the petitioner because the dispute is not over a government land, but it is over a land, which belongs to a private party. Therefore, the order passed by the revenue authority is without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for respondents draw attention of this Court in respect of the amendment made in Section 248 of the Code w.e.f. 08.10.2003, according to which, the land belongs to body corporate is also included in the said section and, according to the respondents, the respondent No. 4 is a body corporate as defined under the Companies Act, 2013. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit challenging the order passed by the revenue authority, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
Signature Not Verified SANConsidering the aforesaid and the fact that a civil suit challenging the Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2021.11.17 10:56:04 IST 2 WP-24685-2021 order of revenue authority is pending before the Civil Court, in such a circumstance, two parallel proceedings in respect of the same order are not maintainable. However, the petitioner is directed to pursue the civil suit. The trial court is also directed to consider the application of temporary injunction filed by the petitioner/plaintiff expeditiously preferably on the next date. It is made clear that the trial court shall consider and decide the injunction application considering its own merit.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE RAGHVENDRA Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2021.11.17 10:56:04 IST