Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nandram vs Premchand on 1 December, 2020

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

                                   - : 1 :-
                                                              M.P. No.327/2020

     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
       (SINGLE BENCH: HON. Mr JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

                          M.P. No. 327 of 2020
       (Nandram S/o. Mohanlal V/s. Premchand S/o. Shankarji & others.)
Date: 01.12.2020 :
             Shri Onkar Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
             Shri Akhilesh Sharma, learned counsel for respondents.
             Heard the learned counsel for the parties through video
conferencing.
                               ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by interlocutory order dated 3.10.2019 passed by Tehsildar, Dhar and order dated 27.12.2019 passed by Additional Collector, Dhar.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :

Respondent Nos.1 to 6 has approached the Tehsildar by way of application u/s. 131 and 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) seeking opening of the approach road to their agriculture field obstructed by the present petitioner. According to them, they are owners of land bearing Survey No.163, 164/1 and 164/2 area 0.228 Hect., 0.107 Hect. and 0.108 Hect. respectively situated in Village Sunarkhedi, Tehsil & District Dhar and they have been an approach through 'Med' situated between land bearing Survey No. 166 and 167 owned by the petitioner. As per averments, the petitioner has obstructed the way by erecting the fencing and a temporary shed for his cattle, therefore, he may be directed to remove the same.

The petitioner appeared before the Tehsildar by filing the reply denying the existence of a way to approach the respondents' land. He submitted that the respondents have an alternate way from Survey

- : 2 :-

No.162/2 and 165/1. There is a 'Pakka' construction and the same cannot be demolished in a proceeding u/s. 32 of the MPLRC. Learned Tehsildar while considering the application u/s. 32 of the MPLRC has directed the petitioner vide order dated 3.10.2019 to permit the respondents to use the 'Med' situated between Survey No.166 and 167 for taking their Tractor Trolley, agricultural material, etc. However, the Tehsildar has wrongly closed the case after deciding the application filed u/s 32 whereas the adjudication u/s 131 of MPLRC has not been done so far. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Tehsildar, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Collector. Vide order dated 27.12.2019 the Addl. Collector has dismissed the revision and maintained the order dated 3.10.2019. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tehsildar has decided the case finally without any evidence. He ought to have passed an interlocutory order because the application filed u/s. 131 of the MPLRC is still pending. He further submits that there is a 'Pakka' construction over the area in question and in order to comply the impugned order the 'Pakka' construction is liable to be demolished which is not permissible in law.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, opposes the prayer by submitting that both the revenue authorities have rightly passed the order after taking the spot inspection report. Hence, no interference is called for and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The provisions of Section 32 of the MPLRC are interlocutory in nature. The respondents have filed an application u/s. 131 and 32 of the MPLRC. By order dated 3.10.2019, only the application u/s. 32 has been decided and by way of an interlocutory

- : 3 :-

order, the petitioner has been directed to remove the construction, therefore, it is an interim order hence, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, otherwise, he would have filed a regular appeal u/s. 44 of the MPLRC. Thus, Case No.10/A-13/117- 18 is treated to be pending before the Tehsildar and the Tehsildar is directed to decide the same after taking evidence.

6. So far as the removal of 'Pakka' construction is concerned, the respondents in their application u/s. 131 have alleged that the present petitioner has obstructed their way by erecting the fencing and made a shed for cattle. Therefore, it is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has obstructed their way by way of 'Pakka' construction. Hence, in the execution of order dated 3.10.2019, no 'Pakka' construction is liable to be removed. Only the fencing and temporary she be removed in order to give the approach road to the respondents. The Tehsildar is directed to decide the case pending before him within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order following the law.

With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Date: 2020.12.06 14:11:26 +05'30'