Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajni Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 March, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 4 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 5510 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAJNI SHARMA W/O SHRI DINESH PACHORI, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O WARD
NO.13, LAHAR ROAD, MIHONA TEHSIL, MIHONA DISTT.
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MR. N.K. GUPTA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. S.D. SINGH -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CO LLECTO R CO LLECTO R BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) SUB
D I V I S I O N LAHAR DISTT BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. KUAR BAI W/O SHRI BABULAL VILLAGE RARI
TEHSIL MIHONA DISTT BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. S.S. KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 3 - STATE AND MR. ROHIT BANSAL - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.4)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 06-Mar-24 11:21:21 AM 2 directed against the order dated 13.01.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub Division, Lahar District Bhind in case No.16/A-5/2021-22, whereby on petitioner's application for correction of map of Survey No.893/4 situated at Ward No.12, Mihona, District Bhind even after conducting an enquiry and calling the report from the Revenue Authority, no order was passed instead on the ground that civil appeal is pending at the behest of present petitioner with regard to same survey no., therefore, the Revenue Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain in this petition for correcting the land record, the application under Sections 107 and 115 of MPLRC was rejected.
2. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. S.D. Singh - Advocate submitted that the impugned order suffers from basic perversity and illegality as Section 257-G of MPLRC which provides for specific jurisdiction for the Revenue Authorities lays down that if any question with regard to demarcation of boundaries or fixing the boundary marks arises than the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority is exclusive and ignoring the aforesaid legal provision, the learned Sub Divisional Officer has passed the said order which deserves to be quashed.
3. It was further contended that since the map which was required to be corrected was for a period prior to five years, therefore, it required Sub Divisional Officer to refer the matter to Collector for passing appropriate orders but instead thereof, Sub Divisional Officer himself usurped the power of Collector and passed the impugned order which is bad in law.
4. It was further contended that the ground on which the application under Sections 107 and 115 of MPLRC was rejected that civil appeal arising out of civil suit at the behest of present petitioner was pending for adjudication on the subject matter which is in dispute before it, therefore, the application Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 06-Mar-24 11:21:21 AM 3 could not be entertained is perse illegal, as from bare perusal of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.223/2011 dated 17.12.2021, it would be clear that the suit basically was for declaring one sale-deed to be null & void, which was executed showing the part of the land which was sold by such sale-deed falling in Survey No.893/4, which was admittedly of the present petitioner and as the defendants/respondents have not disputed the title of the present petitioner over Survey No.893/4, therefore, it could not be said that the dispute in the civil suit and the controversy to be adjudicated by the Revenue Authorities, for correction of the map were the same and when the controversy involved in the civil suit as well as the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities were not akin to each other, the Revenue Authorities could have/should have exercised the power as provided to them under the Code.
5. In the aforesaid facts, it was contended that the present petition be allowed and suitable directions be issued to pass appropriate order after obtaining sanction of the Collector.
6 . Per contra, Mr. S.S. Kushwah - Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Bansal - Advocate for respondent No.4 opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended that no illegality has been committed by Sub Divisional Officer in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Sections 107 and 115 of MPLRC and Sub Divisional Officer was right in holding that since the matter in dispute before him was similar to that of dispute raised by the petitioner before the Civil Court, therefore, till decision of Civil Court, he has no right to proceed in the matter. It was further submitted that the relief which was claimed in the suit by the present petitioner was with regard to Survey No.893/4 only and Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 06-Mar-24 11:21:21 AM 4 herein also correction of map with regard to Survey No.893/4 has been sought and once the Civil Court has held that the petitioner was not able to prove the factum of the land sold by way of the sale-deed related to Survey No.893/4, it could be said that there was no dispute with regard to the map of said Survey No. Thus, once the present petitioner has preferred an appeal for dismissal of the civil suit, the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer cannot be said to be bad in law. In the aforesaid premise, it was contended that the present petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. The facts which are not disputed by the parties are that the Survey No.893/4 admeasuring 0.100 hectare situated at village Mihona belongs to the present petitioner. The dispute which has been raised by the present petitioner in the civil suit is that the defendants therein had sold a part of his land, though, the said part of land was situated at Survey No.893/3 and in that regard it was prayed that the same sale-deed be declared as null & void.
9. Herein before the Revenue Authorities, the present petitioner has moved an application under Sections 107 and 115 of MPLRC for correction of the map of said Survey No.893 In pursuance to the aforesaid application, Collector forwarded the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer, who directed the Tehsildar to enquire into the matter and upon directions, the Superintendent Land Record, submitted its report to Tehsildar on 22.02.2022, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the map with regard to Survey No.893/4 needs correction and if such correction is carried out, there would not be any difference in the areas held by parties over the said Survey No. and the adjoining Survey Nos. The said report was forwarded by the Tehsildar to the Sub Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Officer without adhering to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 06-Mar-24 11:21:21 AM 5 provision of Section 115 of the MPLRC passed the impugned order which according to this Court was perse illegal, as proviso to Sub Section 1 and Section 115 of MPLRC lays down that sanction from the Collector is required prior to taking any action in cases where the period pertains prior to five years of which correction has been sought.
10. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it is not reflected that before passing the impugned order, any sanction was sought from the Collector. According to this Court, before taking any decision in the matter, it was required for the Sub Divisional Officer to have sought sanction from the Collector and only, thereafter, he could have passed any order, but that apart, the Sub Divisional Officer without going into the illegality and proprietary of the matter had dismissed the said application only on the ground of pendency of civil appeal at the behest of present petitioner with regard to same Survey No. which according to this Court could not be held to be proper as the very subject matter of civil suit and the application preferred before him were altogether different.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed the matter is relegated back to the Sub Divisional Officer for passing appropriate decision in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer on 15.04.2024.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE bj/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: BARKHA SHARMA Signing time: 06-Mar-24 11:21:21 AM