Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order 62 occupiers filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner under section 44(2) of the MLRC and vide order dated 08.08.2019 the Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal as well by upholding the order passed by the Tahsildar as well as the SDO.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, out of 62 occupants only 30 petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court inter alia on the ground that the respondent No.4 purchased the land bearing survey No.66/1 (part) whereas the petitioners are in possession over the land bearing survey No.66/2/K. The proceeding under section 250 of the MPLRC can be initiated in respect of the vacant agricultural land and the moments it is discovered that there are constructions on the land, the proceedings are liable to be dropped. In the demarcation proceedings, the petitioners and other occupiers were not given any notice, hence such a demarcation proceeding cannot be made the basis for passing the order under section 250 of the MPLRC. The issue of title cannot be decided in the revenue proceedings. The petitioners have also raised the issue of limitation as under

section 250 of the MPLRC a Tahsildar can reinstate the possession of a Bhumiswami who is improperly dispossessed within 2 years from the date of application. The petitioners are in possession since last so many years and admittedly beyond the period of two years, therefore, the proceedings under section 250 MPLRC are not maintainable. At the most, the respondent No.3 is required to file a civil suit before the Civil Court for obtaining the possession from the petitioners.

9. After notice respondents No.1 to 3 have filed the return in support of the orders passed by the revenue authorities by submitting that the land bearing survey No.66 admeasuring 1.842 hectares was initially owned by the Nyay Vibhag and a piece of land area 0.016 hectare is owned by Ali Mohammed, who filed an application for batankan which was allowed and the land owned by Nyay Vibhag admeasuring 1.842 hectare was renumbered as survey No.66/1 and the land owned by Ali Mohammad was renumbered as 66/2. Out of the total land, Nyay Vibhag sold 0.101 hectares to Vivek Kumar Satyanarayan Jaiswal and retained the remaining land as survey No.66/1. Out of the remaining land i.e. 1.624 hectares, Nyay Vibhag further sold the land measuring 0.720 hectares to the respondent No.4 vide registered sale deed dated 31.03.2003. The respondent No.4 applied for batankan in which the purchased land was renumbered as survey No.66/2 and the name of respondent No.4 was mutated. Since the survey No.66/2 had already been allotted to Ali Mohammad as well as to the respondent No.4 erroneously, therefore, the land purchased by the respondent No.4 was renumbered as a survey No.66/2/k (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question') and survey no.66/2 area 0.016 hectare continued in the name of Ali Mohammad. It is further submitted that the revenue authorities have followed the principles of natural justice as well as the procedure prescribed under the MPLRC. Despite the issuance of notice to all the occupiers, only few have appeared before the Tahsildar through Advocate and produced the registered or notarized sale deeds. It is further submitted that the seller from whom petitioners said to have purchased various polts in the colony by way of registered or notarized sale deeds were never recorded as owners of the land. It is further submitted that in the sale deeds filed by the petitioners a fact about the diversion of the land vide demand no.15580/A-2/12-13 dated 31.05.2012 passed under section 146 of the MPLRC is written but in the records maintained in the office of Sub Divisional Officer no such case or order exists, therefore, the petitioners have no title over the land in question. The SDO has sought information from the Tahsildar, Juni Indore about the payment of diversion tax with respect to land bearing survey no.66. Vide letter dated 03.12.2019 the Tahsildar, Juni Indore has informed that no case for recovery of diversion tax was found concerning survey No.66. The Superintendent Land Division, Indore vide letter dated 03.12.2019 has also informed that the demand notice goes only through computer, and in the entire digital record there is no such diversion account is there concerning survey No.66. Even the SDO, Kanadia has also informed vide letter dated 04.12.2019 that demand No.15580/A-2/12-13 dated 31.05.2012 was not registered in the Kanadia Sub Division.

32. The third issue which is under consideration before this Court is in respect of the scope of section 250 of the MPLRC. Shri Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the land in question is though recorded as agricultural land but no agricultural activities have ever taken place either by the petitioners, respondent no.4 or their predecessor-in-title. The present respondent No.4 is a developer and purchased the land for development and not for agricultural purposes, therefore, section 250 proceeding ought not to have been invoked. For ready reference section 250 MPLRC is reproduced below:

Merely paying property tax or obtaining electricity connection therein would not legalize their construction or would not confer any title to them. If the construction is illegal that too on land without title then that cannot come in the way of exercising the statutory power of Tahsildar under section 250 of the MPLRC. In order to defeat the provisions of MPLRC anybody can make illegal construction on the land and stall the proceeding of section 250 MPLRC. This is not the intention of the Legislature. If the Bhumiswami has been dispossessed or the possession of any person has been found unauthorized then such a person is legally bound to hand over the vacant possession to the Bhumiswami under section 250 of MPLRC . With full conscious the legislature has drafted the definition of the 'land' in the MPLRC in which all the things permanently fastened with the land have been fictionally treated as the land, therefore, mere construction on any land by a person who is unauthorisedly in possession cannot resist the proceeding under section 250. Even otherwise, the Municipal Corporation has ample power under section 299 of the Municipal Corporation Act to demolish the illegal construction at any point of time. Since the petitioners are not title holders of the land and made entier construction without permission hence the such illegal construction cannot be compounded under section 308 of the Municipal Corporation and rules made thereunder. The respondent No.4 cannot be relegated to the civil court to obtain possession or decree of declaration in respect of the construction as void and claim the possession. That out of 62 illegal occupants only one has filed a civil suit before the civil court. Therefore, when all the 3 authorities by way of concurrent finding have held that the petitioners' possession is unauthorized then they are liable to be removed by way of an order under section 250 MPLRC.