Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Yadav vs Sunil Kumar Badkul on 13 October, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1 MP-4779-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
th
ON THE 13 OF OCTOBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 4779 of 2022
Between:-
1. DINESH YADAV S/O LATE NARAYAN
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: CULTIVATOR R/O VILLAGE
RUSALLA, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR
(M.P.)
2. PRAKASH YADAV S/O BHUJBAL YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
CULTIVATOR, R/O VILLAGE RUSALLA,
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI P.C. PALIWAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SUNIL KUMAR BADKUL S/O NATHURAM,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O PODDHAR
COLONY, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR
(M.P.)
2 BALRAM YADAV (DEAD) THROUGH L.R.S.,
2A NATHURAM YADAV S/O BALRAM YADAV
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2B VIPAT YADAV S/O BALRAM YADAV AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS
2 MP-4779-2022
2C SHEEL RANI WD/O BALRAM YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RES.NO.2A TO 2C R/O VILLAGE RUSALLA,
TaHSIL & DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.)
3. THE COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) SAGAR
DIVISION SAGAR (M.P.)
4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER
(REVENUE) SAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR
(M.P.)
5. NAIB TAHSILDAR PARSORIYA, DISTRICT
SAGAR (M.P.)
....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS/STATE BY SHRI PIYUSH JAIN - GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE AND RESPONDENT NO.1/CAVEATOR - SUNIL KUMAR
BADKUL BY SHRI PREMENDRA SEN - ADVOCATE )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to assail the legality and validity of order dated 23.09.2022 passed by Commissioner (Revenue) Sagar Division, Sagar in Case No.0241/Appeal/2022-23 (Annexure P/1); order dated 25.10.2021 passed by S.D.O. (Revenue) Division Sagar, District Sagar in Case No.0048/Appeal/2021-2022 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 07.07.2021 passed by Naib Tahsildar Parsoriya, District Sagar (M.P.) in Case No.002/-A-70/2021-22 (Annexure P/3).
3 MP-4779-2022
2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also on final disposal.
3. The facts as projected by learned counsel for petitioners is that petitioners claim to be in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of their respective land situated in khasra No.252/1, New No.400/1, Patwari Halka No.78, village Rusalla , District Sagar (M.P.). It is alleged by petitioners that the said land was purchased by one Amritlal Ahuja by registered sale deed executed sometime in the year 1982. During the time of this purchase, petitioners claimed themselves to be residing on the said piece of land. It is also urged that said purchaser Amritlal Ahuja did not disturb the possession of petitioners. The fact also discloses that on the death of Amritlal Ahuja, son and widow of Late Amritlal Ahuja sold the land on which petitioners were residing, by registered sale deed dated 29.06.2013 to respondent No.1. The averment in the petition also disclose that eight years' thereafter, Sunil Kumar Badkul (respondent no.1 herein) applied for demarcation of land in question. Consequently, the demarcation was conducted. Based on the demarcation report, respondent No.1 preferred an application before Naib Tehsildar u/S.250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code seeking direction for evicting the petitioners from the land belonging to respondent No.1. Consequently, Naib Tehsildar vide Annexure P/3 passed order dated 07.07.2021 u/S.250 of the MPLR Code directing eviction of petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sagar (M.P.) which was also dismissed on 25.10.2021 (Annexure P/2). The second appeal preferred by petitioners before Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar also suffered the same fate vide Annexure P/1 on 23.09.2022.
4 MP-4779-2022
4. During the pendency of first appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), petitioners approached the civil court seeking decree of permanent injunction by way of RCS A No.60/2022 (Dinesh Yadav and another Vs. Sunil Kumar Badkul and six others). In the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was moved, which came to be decided on 09.05.2022 vide Annexure P/10 restraining respondents from evicting petitioners from the land in question without following the due process of law. Indisputably, the said civil suit is pending adjudication.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners relying upon the Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of SHREE VAISHNAV SAHAYAK TRUST, INDORE vs. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS, 2015 (2) MPLJ 561 submits that once the petitioners had approached civil court which had protected them from eviction, the respondents/Revenue Authorities ought not to have proceeded with execution of orders passed u/S. 250 of the MPLR Code and, therefore, the order of eviction (Annexue P/3) passed by Naib Tehsildar and the subsequent orders of first and second appellate authority (Annexure P/2 and P/1 respectively) deserve to be set aside.
6. The record reveals that petitioners approached the civil court in RCSA No.60/2022 where a decree of permanent injunction was sought and during pendency of the suit, the only protection granted was to restrain the Revenue Authorities from evicting petitioners from the land in question without following the due process of law. Thus, even the civil court did not restrain the respondents/Revenue Authorities from evicting the petitioners but, in fact, impliedly permitted the eviction on following the due process of law.
5 MP-4779-2022 6.1 The proceedings that are being undertaken by the Revenue Authorities for evicting petitioners by treating them as encroacher is after following the due process of law as prescribed u/S.250 and other provisions of the MPLR code and thus it cannot be said that the attempt made to evict petitioners is in any way violative of any judicial order.
6.2 In view of above and the fact that petitioners in the present petition are unable to demonstrate their interest or title over the land in question, the challenge made to orders dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure P/1), 25.10.2021 (Annexure P/2) and 07.07.2021 (Annexure P/3) is repelled.
7. The decision relied upon by petitioners in the case of S.V.S. TRUST (supra) is of no avail since in the said case the civil court had restrained the respondent authorities from evicting the plaintiff therein pursuant to orders passed u/S. 250 of MPLR Code. In S.V.S. TRUST (supra), temporary injunction granted was not of the same nature as granted herein where liberty has been extended to Revenue Authorities of evicting the petitioners on following the due process of law. Thus, the said decision of S.V.S. TRUST (supra) is not helpful to petitioners.
8. Any observation or finding recorded in this order shall not prejudice the parties in the suit.
9. This Court finds no ground to interfere in this miscellaneous petition, which accordingly stands dismissed in limine.
(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE DV Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2022.10.14 18:39:36 +05'30'