Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nagrik Hit Samrakshan Samiti Benisagar ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 September, 2022
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 23rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 20086 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
NAGRIK HIT SAMRAKSHAN SAMITI,
BENISAGAR PANNA (M.P.) THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY, SANTOSH KUMAR CHANPURIYA,
S/O SHRI DASHRATH PRASAD CHANPURIYA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O SHIVALAYA
CHATERJEE ROAD, BENISAGAR MOHALLA,
PANNA DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SACHIN SINGH YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, DIVISION
SAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. COLLECTOR, PANNA, DISTRICT PANNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DISTRICT-
PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. TEHSILDAR, DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2
6. SMT. SUMANLATA SHARMA, W/O
RAMBABU SHARMA, R/O BENISAGAR,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT- PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. JANHAVI PANDIT - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the appeal filed under Section 44 (2) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code of 1959") by respondent no.6 has been allowed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed a Public Interest Litigation registered as Writ Petition No.7180 of 2002 wherein the issues regarding inconveniences of general public were raised due to the encroachments upon the public road, land bearing Khasra No.2418. The writ petition was disposed off on 15.05.2015 directing the respondent no.3 to look into the matter and if any encroachment have been made, the same be removed in accordance with law. Thereafter, the inquiry has been conducted by the authorities and the report from respondents no.4 and 5 was called for, with respect to encroachment upon the government/public road. After the receipt of the inquiry report, the respondent no.3 directed the respondent no.5 to remove the encroachment from the land. Respondent no.5 issued notices to him and after giving opportunity of hearing, passed a reasoned order on 10.03.2016 directing for removal of encroachment from the public land.
3. However, The respondent no.6 preferred an appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Code of 1959 before the respondent no.4 which was dismissed on 16.05.2017. In the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner was made a party. The second appeal was preferred before the respondent no.2 without impleading the 3 petitioner/Samiti as a party which was decided on 18.11.2019. It is his contention that the order was passed behind the back of the petitioner. He is one of the interested party in the matter, all actions have been initiated by the respondents on the complaint made by the petitioner, therefore, he was one of the necessary party to the proceedings. In such circumstances, he prays for setting aside the order and remand the matter for reconsideration after impleading him the party to the proceedings.
4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. A specific question was put to the counsel appearing for the petitioner that what locus he is having to challenge the order passed by the respondent no.2. The only answer given is that as he is the complainant, he is having right to be heard before the court. He was an essential party to the proceedings because it is on his complaint, the action has been initiated by the authorities, the question was with respect to the complainant having any locus to initiate the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in view of the judgement passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18387 of 2020 (M.P. Karmacharai Congress Vs. State of M.P. & ors.), decided on 06/01/2021 which was duly affirmed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.64 of 2021 decided on 10/02/2021, thus petitioner is having no locus to prefer this writ petition.
6. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Karmacharai Congress (supra) has passed the following order:-
"It is settled proposition of law that only a person who has suffered or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a Court of law. There is no dispute that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person, except in the case where the writ prayed for is for Habeas Corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest.
Who can said to be a person aggrieved, has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 4 (2013) 4 SCC 465, wherein the Supreme Court has observed :-
"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities.
Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right.
Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 5 2736; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784).
10. A 'legal right', means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law.
The expression, 'person aggrieved' does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361)"
The status of the petitioner in the present case is that of complainant, thus at the most, he could have led the evidence as witness, but he cannot claim the possession of adversarial litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. Further, the petitioner/Union cannot be permitted to meddle in the administrative matter to dictate the transfer order, which does not affect him. A legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law. Thus a person who raises a grievance must show that he has suffered some legal injury [vide (2012) 4 SCC 407 Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others]. In the present case, apart from stating that he was the complainant, the petitioner has not shown that any of his statutory or legal right has been affected.
In view of the aforestated legal position, the petitioner has no locus to file this petition. The right to avail a remedy under the law is the right of every citizen but such right cannot extend to misuse the judicial process."
7. In the present case, admittedly, the complaint made by the petitioner was taken into cognizance and was acted upon by the authorities and the order of encroachment was passed. It is not the case of the petitioner that his complaint was never addressed by the respondents. After passing of the removal order, the matter remains between the private respondents and the respondent authorities. The petitioner has no role to play in this. In such circumstances, as 6 the petitioner is having no locus to file the present petition, in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.
8. Petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Sha
SHALINI LANDGE
2022.09.28
17:13:55 +05'30'