Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunita Mewara vs Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 21 April, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10350
1 MP-3186-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
MISC. PETITION No. 3186 of 2019
SUNITA MEWARA AND OTHERS
Versus
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Mahim Priya Pandey - advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Jayesh Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.
Heard on : 28.03.2025
Pronounced on : 21.04.2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.12.2018, passed in 6356/2018 by President Madhya Pradesh Revenue Board Gwalior, and order dated 22.9.2018, passed in case No. 263/2017-18, passed by Additional Commissioner, Indore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Tehsildar of Tehsil Kasrawad presented a report along with Panchnama before the Sub-Divisional Officer Revenue, Kasrawad that the husband of applicant namely Satish resident Khalbujurg, Tehsil Kasrawad, has done illegal construction on his own land Khasra No. 208/2 area 1.960 hectare of village Khalbujurg without diversion. On this report, the Sub-Divisional Officer registered a case and summoned the applicant and received the re-assessment report from the Superintendent Land Records (Converted Land) Khargone and the statement of the Patwari was recorded. For violating section 172 (4), a fine of Rs.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 4/23/2025 7:02:09 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10350 2 MP-3186-2019 4,90,000 was imposed on the applicant. An appeal was filed before the Additional Collector, District Khargone against this impugned order. The Additional Collector, District Khargone passed an order dated 21/09/2017 and the case was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer with the direction to investigate the disputed land in the case as to how the land came into legal possession after being registered in the name of Haresing, Kalji, Bhalji father Khema Bhil Adivasi resident Panwa in 1959-60. If the transfer of land is found to be illegal, then take necessary action under section 170 (b) of the MP Land Revenue Code. Dissatisfied with this impugned order of the Additional Collector, the appellant has filed a second appeal before Commissioner, Indore, which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order, a revision has been filed before the Revenue Board, Gwalior, which was also dismissed stating that the Revenue Board has no jurisdiction. Again being aggrieved by the order of Revenue Board, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 208/2 Rakba hectar. Currently, the application is cultivating the land. He is using the said land for agricultural purposes only. The petitioner has received a demand notice for paying the remaining revenue of Rs. 1005/-. Along with the abovementioned notice, the Petitioner received another recovery notice by Respondent No.2, stating that, the Petitioner has used the abovementioned agricultural land for commercial purpose without taking due permission from the concerned authorities, and therefore, fine of Rs. 4,90,000/- (Four Lakh Ninety Thousand Only) was also levied on the Petitioner. It was also mentioned in the recovery notice that, in case of non-payment of the said fine, the process of auction will be the last Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 4/23/2025 7:02:09 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10350 3 MP-3186-2019 resort. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Road Contractor, who takes contracts for construction of the Road, he had kept a movable Asphalt plant on the said land. Asphalt Plant is machinery, which is movable in nature. It does not come under the permanent construction. The petitioner has just kept an Asphalt Plant on the said land, which is movable machinery which is used in the construction of roads. The Respondent No. 2 committed a grave error of law and fact in ignoring the fact that a Asphalt plant does not come under the definition of the "building". The definition of Building as per section 2(c) of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973, states as under:-
"...."building" means a house, hut, shed or other structures for whatever purpose and with whatever material constructed and every parts thereof whether temporary or permanent and whether used as human habitation or not and includes a well latrine drainage work, fixed platforms, veranda plinth, door steps, compound wall, fencing and the like; and any work connected therewith but does not include plant or machinery comprised in a building."
4. It is further submitted that there is no construction of any building on the said land, only the machinery was kept on the said land, as the petitioner didn't had any other place to keep the same. The petitioner keep moving the Asphalt plant where it is required, currently the plant is at Petitioner's construction site. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the recovery order dated 17.2.2017 passed by Tehsildar and order dated 22.9.2019, passed by Additional Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 4/23/2025 7:02:09 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10350 4 MP-3186-2019 Commissioner, may kindly be stayed.5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Having considered the arguments, I have gone through the record and orders of the Revenue Courts.
7. Learned SDO, Kasrawad, after considering the documents, adjudicated that the petitioner has diverted his land for commercial purpose and started Asphalt Plant. In this regard, show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. However, he failed to give reply and explaining the facts as to how he has started the plant. Actually, no one had appeared before the SDO on behalf of the petitioner, hence, ex-parte proceedings were conducted against him. After proper appreciation of evidence and procedure, learned SDO has adjudicated that since the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 172(4) of MPLRC, he is liable for punishment of Rs. 4,90,000/-. Petitioner has filed a First Appeal against that order before the Court of Additional Collector, Khargone. The Additional Collector has considered the whole evidence available on record, confirmed the order of SDO, Kesrawad. Thereafter, that order was again challenged in Second Appeal before Additional Commissioner, Indore. In Second Appeal. The Additional Commissioner, Indore has passed a detailed order addressing all of the submissions, affirmed the order of SDO and Additional Collector, Khargone. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a Revision filed before the Revenue Board has been dismissed stating that it is without jurisdiction. Here it is pertinent Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 4/23/2025 7:02:09 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10350 5 MP-3186-2019 to mention that the ex-parte proceedings were conducted by the SDO against the petitioner. However, the petitioner has not filed any application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and directly filed appeal. In this regard, no explanation has been placed before this Court by the petitioner. He has not tried to put his case before the concerning Courts properly.
8. Under theses circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve to get any relief under Section 227 of Constitution of India specially when the orders of Revenue Boards are not comprising any illegality or impropriety.
9. Accordingly, this petition is found devoid of merits, hence, dismissed.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE VD Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 4/23/2025 7:02:09 AM