Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rampyari vs Jitendra Kumar Jain on 11 March, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 11 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 1550 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. RAMPYARI W/O DURAGSINGH GOND, AGED
ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
VILLAGE SHAHPUR WARD NO,07, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KARAN S/O DURAG SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT
32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE
SHAHPUR WARD NO. 7 TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. HARNAM S/O DURAG SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT
30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE
SHAHPUR WARD NO. 7 TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BHUPENDRA S/O DURAG SINGH GOND, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O
VILLAGE SHAHPUR WARD NO. 7 TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI B.K. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN S/O RAJENDRA KUMAR
J I A N R/O VILLAGE SHAHPUR TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BRAJENDRA JAIN S/O RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN
R/O VILLAGE SHAHPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DURGESH SINGH SIGRORE- ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 3/15/2024
3:52:37 PM
2
following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 13/02/2023 (Annexure P/4) passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar, the present petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that an application under Section 250 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, was moved before the Tahsildar by the respondents praying inter alia that they are owner of the land and in possession ad measuring 2820 sq.ft. situated at Khasra No.998 and the petitioner Jitendra Kumar is the owner of same Khasra Number ad measuring 1230 sq.ft of land. The said land according to respondents was occupied by the present petitioners and accordingly the eviction of the petitioners was sought by way of said application. The Naib Tahsildar Parsoria, District Sagar vide order dated 26/03/2019 issued direction for removal of possession of present petitioners over the property in question. The order passed by Naib Tahsildar, was assailed by the petitioners by filing an appeal before Sub Divisional Officer, Sagar who vide order dated 30/03/2021 allowed the appeal while observing that the provisions of Section 250 of M.P.L.R.C. was not applicable as the land in question was not meant for agricultural purposes and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. The order of SDO was then assailed by the respondents while filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner who vide order dated 13/02/2023 has allowed the appeal and has set aside the order of SDO dated 30/03/2021 and upheld the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar dated 26/03/2019.
3. It is contended by the counsel that in the present case a well reasoned order passed by the SDO has been set aside in a purely mechanical manner by the Additional Commissioner, Division Sagar without appreciating Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 3/15/2024 3:52:37 PM 3 the fact that the applicability of the provisions of Section 250 of MPLRC was questioned which was required to be dealt with by the authorities. The SDO while arriving at a categorical findings held that as the land was not to be used for agricultural purposes and the land was bifurcated into plots, thus the application under Section 250 of MPLRC was not applicable. The Commissioner though referred to the said findings of the SDO but without sifting the evidence and without dealing with the said findings, has proceeded to set aside the order which is unsustainable.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed by the Commissioner requires no interference inasmuch as the order of Tahsildar was passed while appreciating the provisions of Section 250 of MPLRC. In the present case as the respondents were dispossessed from the property in question, resultantly, an application under Section 250 of MPLRC was passed which was rightly allowed by the Naib Tahsildar. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder and Ors. Vs. Smt. Savitri Bai and Ors. in WA No.909/2023.
5. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
6. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, Tahsildar was approached by the respondents by way of an application under Section 250 of MPLRC. Before the Tahsildar, dispute was to the effect that as to whether the present petitioners had encroached upon some portion of land situated on Khasra No.998. The Tahsildar allowed the application and passed the order dated 26/03/2019. The said order was assailed before the Sub Divisional Officer. The SDO while assigning the cogent reasons that to the land in question, the provisions of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 3/15/2024 3:52:37 PM 4 Section 250 of MPLRC were not applicable, set aside the order of Tahsildar. The SDO while passing the order impugned observed that the land was not earmarked for agricultural purposes and the original land was converted into plots, thus, there was no question of applicability of Section 250 of MPLRC. The said findings of SDO has not been dealt with by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar while passing the impugned order.
8. The Additional Commissioner, Sagar was required to deal with the findings of SDO that the provisions of Section 250 of MPLRC were not applicable as the land was not earmarked for agricultural purposes. The Additional Commissioner, Sagar has observed that the SDO ought to have relegated the parties to take recourse to competent Civil Court by filing a Civil Suit. These findings was also required to be taken note of in view of the order passed by the SDO as the SDO himself observed that the filing of civil suit was an appropriate remedy for the purpose of adjudication of lis. It is apparent, that the Additional Commissioner, Sagar has proceeded in high handed manner while passing the impugned order as the entire impugned order does not deal with the applicability of Section 250 of MPLRC.
9. Resultantly, impugned order dated 13/02/2023 passed by Additional Commissioner (Annexure P/4) is set aside. The matter is remitted back to Additional Commissioner, Division Sagar to take a decision afresh on the appeal preferred by the respondents including the issue pertaining to applicability of Section 250 of MPLRC within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
10. Parties are directed to maintain status quo as it exists today till the final order is passed by Additional Commissioner, Division Sagar in terms of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 3/15/2024 3:52:37 PM 5 this order.
11. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 3/15/2024 3:52:37 PM