Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shriram vs State Of M.P. Through Revenue ... on 5 April, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
W.P. No.19902/2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
W.P. No. 19902 of 2020
(Shriram S/o. Rajaram Patel & another V/s. State of M.P. & others.)
Date: 05.04.2021 :
Shri Piyush Shrivastava learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ankit Premchandani, learned Panel Advocate for
respondents/State on an advance copy.
Heard on the question of admission.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved
by the order dated 12.2.2019 passed by Tehsildar, Tappa Chhidawad,
Tehsil Tonkkhurd, District Dewas; order dated 7.8.2019 passed by Sub
Divisional Officer, Sonkachh, District Dewas; and order dated 24.2.2020
passed by Collector, District Dewas, whereby they have been directed to
remove the obstruction.
2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :
Respondents No.5 to 13 being owners of agricultural lands bearing
Survey Nos. 2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2381 and 2383 approached
the Naib Tehsildar alleging that the petitioners have blocked their way to
approach their agricultural lands for agricultural purposes, therefore, they
may be directed to remove the obstruction. The aforesaid application was
filed on 22.10.2018..
Vide order dated 30.11.2018, the Tehsildar directed the petitioners
to file a reply and also directed the Patwari to submit the spot inspection
report. On 20.12.2018. The petitioners have filed the Vakalatnama and the
Patwari has also submitted the spot inspection report. On 27.12.2018 the
last opportunity was given to file a reply. On 10.1.2019, the petitioners
filed the reply and the respondents were given time to file rejoinder. The
petitioners have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.
on 10.1.2019 seeking rejection of the aforesaid application on the ground
that they are not the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 1353 and the
- : 2 :-
W.P. No.19902/2020
said land is recorded in the name of Shivjiram S/o. Bhagirath and the
private respondents were given time to file a reply. Respondents have
filed an application seeking correction of the Survey number in the
petition in place of 1353 to 2380. Vide order dated 6.2.2019 the Tehsildar
has allowed the application and directed for carrying out the correction.
The counsel appearing for the petitioners has refused to sign the order-
sheet. On 12.2.2019, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners and the
Tehsildar has heard and closed the matter for final orders . That vide order
dated 12.2.2019 the Tehsildar has directed the petitioners to remove the
obstruction and permitted the respondents to take their tractor from 'Med'
at the West side of Survey No.2380.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have
preferred an appeal u/s. 44(1) of the MP Land Revenue Code (MPLRC)
before the Sub Divisional Officer . Vide order dated 7.8.2019, the Sub
Divisional Officer has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed
by the Tehsildar. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred a revision u/s.
50 of the MPLRC before the Collector and that too has been dismissed
vide order dated 24.2.2020. Hence the present petition before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
learned Tehsildar has passed the order summarily without framing issues
and recording evidence. He ought to have examined the issue that
respondents are having an alternate way to approach their lands. It is
further submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Tehsildar has not
followed the prescribed procedure for deciding the application u/s. 133 of
the MPLRC. The appellate authority, as well as revisional authority, have
also ignored the aforesaid lapses on the part of the Tehsildar, hence the
impugned orders are bad in law and liable to be set aside. Surprisingly, in
support of the submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Board of Revenue
reported in 1994 RN 43 and 1977 RN 147 in support of his arguments.
I have perused the record.
4. The respondents being the agriculturists and owners of
- : 3 :-
W.P. No.19902/2020
agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376,
2381 and 2383 made a complaint to the Tehsildar that the petitioners
being the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 1353 have obstructed
their way. Survey number1353 had wrongly been mentioned, but, the
petitioners instead of contesting the matter on merits filed an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. despite knowing that it was merely a
typing mistake. However, the Tehsildar has permitted the respondents to
correct the said mistake and there is no illegality in it.
5. Before passing the impugned order, the Tehsildar has
obtained the spot inspection report. The Revenue Inspector conducted the
spot inspection on 14.12.2018 in presence of petitioners and respondents
and found the marks of tyres of tractors on the middle of Survey Nos.
2380 and on the 'Medh' at Westside which has confirmed that the
respondents were using the said 'Medh' for taking their agricultural
equipment and tractors to their agricultural fields. The said report has
been made basis to the Tehsildar, Sub Divisional Officer and the Collector
to pass the impugned orders.
6. According to the petitioners, before passing the impugned
orders, no evidence was recorded. The proceedings u/s. 133 of the
MPLRC are summary proceedings. The copy of the reply filed by the
petitioners has not been filed by them along with this petition for the
perusal of this Court. The petitioners have not come before this Court with
the plea that the respondents are having an alternate way to approach their
lands. They have not produced any material in rebuttal to show that the
respondents have an alternate way to approach their land. However, the
petitioners are not disputing that the agricultural lands of the respondents
are behind their agricultural land bearing Survey No. 2380. Therefore, all
the authorities under the MPLRC have rightly passed the impugned orders
directing the petitioners to remove the obstruction. The scope of
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited.
The Supreme court in another case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and
another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil : (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that the
- : 4 :-
W.P. No.19902/2020
High court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere to
correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the
one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view.
The High Court can exercise this power when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where
there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic
principles of natural justice have been flouted.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition fails and is
hereby dismissed in limine.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2021.04.07 15:14:27 +05'30'
