Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyam Sunder Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-8631-2018
(SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 14-06-2018
Shri Abhijit Awasthy and Shri Ranjeet Singh, counsel for the
petitioners.
Shri Rahul Mishra, Govt. Adv. for the State.
Heard on I.A No.7199/2018 an application for urgent hearing
sh
during summer vacation.
e
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
ad
allowed.
Heard on admission.
Pr
Petitioners have filed this petition for quashment of the order
a
hy
dated 09.01.2018 [Annexure-P-6] and also prays a direction that
respondent no.2/Collector Katni be directed to pass an order of
ad mutation in favour of the petitioners.
M A lease was granted in favour of forefather of the petitioners by Pandit Shri Khampariya Bholeram, the then Malgujar of a land area of 27x135 plot no.251, Khasara No.25 B of ward Hanumanganj, Katni.
rt Since then the forefathers of petitioners and sons have been in ou possession on the land, the house was constructed and the corporation Tax was paid. Due to some irregularity, names of present petitioners C have not been recorded in the revenue record. Petitioners submitted an h application for mutation and recording their names in the revenue ig record on 01.02.2011.
H Tahsildar (Nazul)/respondent no.3 was directed to revenue inspector to submit the report. Revenue Inspector submitted its report, copy of the same has been filed as Annexure-P-2. Petitioners filed their affidavits. On the basis of report of the revenue Inspector, Tahsildar passed a detailed order on 12.08.2013. Land was also assessed. Petitioners deposited an amount of Rs.28,490/- and 2590/- respectively on 9.5.2016. Tahsildar held that the petitioners are in possession on the plot. He proposed recording of names and mutation in favour of the petitioners vide orders dated 10.02.2013. By the impugned order, Collector rejected the application after observing that in the Kaifiyat column no.12, there is no provision of recording the names of persons who are in possession on the land. Petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by the Collector is contrary to the direction dated 23.04.2014 issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Nagar Jan Kalyan Sewa Samiti, Jabalpur vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another [WP No.14328/2013 (PIL)] and in Writ Appeal No.325/2010, Writ Petition No.4237/2010 (PIL), Writ Petition sh No.10689/2010 (PIL), Writ Petition No.10815/2010 (PIL), Writ e Petition No.10369/2012 (PIL), Conc No.1645/2013. It was obligatory ad on the part of Collector to obey the direction of the Division Bench.
Pr Division Bench of this Court while deciding the writ appeals, writ petitions and contempt cases issued following directions.
a hy " It is not in dispute that the State Government has ad already taken a decision to convert the 'abadi' land as nazul land. That first step has already been taken by the State M Authorities. The next step is to enquire into each individual of case to ascertain whether, the name of the occupant of the concerned land in the nazul area so converted can be rt recorded as "Bhumiswami" but that enquiry will have to be ou done on the case to case basis. The contempt Authority is C already engaged in that exercise. Compliance report in that h behalf was filed as back as in December, 2012. However, it ig appears that till today enquiry in respect of the occupants in H the subject area has not been completed.
We direct the State Authorities/competent Authority to complete the said enquiry in respect of each claim by following due process as expeditiously as possible and not later then,31.10.2014. We make it clear that we are not examining the question as to whether the State Government was justified in converting the 'abadi' land into 'nazul' land as also the claim of the petitioners to record their names as 'Bhumiswami' respect of the land held by them. These questions will have to be considered on their own merits, as and when occasion arises, before the appropriate Forum. In other words, for the time being, we dispose of these petitions/appeal with direction to the State Authorities to expedite the process of consideration of recording of names of the occupants in the nazul area. All the questions to be decided in the enquiry to be conducted by the Contempt Authority are left open.
Notice issued in contempt petition stands discharged and the said petition is disposed of."
sh Division Bench had issued a direction to the State authorities to e ad expedite the process of consideration of recording the names of the occupants in the nazul area.
Pr From the report submitted by the Tahsildar and Nazul Officer, it a is clear that the petitioners are in possession on the land for a longer hy time. There are documents to this effect. Collector rejected the ad application of the petitioners only on the ground that there is no provision in the column number 12 Kaifiyat regarding possession of M the persons. The order passed by the Collector is contrary to the of directions dated 23.04.2014 issued by the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, the impugned order 09.01.2018 [Annexure-P-6] is rt hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Collector Katni to ou pass fresh order in the light of order passed by Division Bench of this C Court and as per the report of Tahsildar and Nazul Officers and other h documents on record. Necessary order be passed within a period of ig three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. H Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) V. JUDGE Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 2018.06.18 22:11:26 -07'00' pb