Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghisilal Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WA-357-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WA-357-2021
(GHISILAL PARMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 31-03-2021
Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Ashish Anand Barnad, learned Deputy Advocate General
for the respondents/State.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 04.02.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1735/2021 dismissing the
writ petition filed by the appellant.
The appellant in the writ petition has set-up a case that he is the
owner of the land comprising Khasra No.428 measuring 0.39 dismil
situated at Village-Bagmugaliya, Bhopal and even in the revenue
records, the land is recorded in his name. The appellant submitted an
application for demarcation of the land to the revenue authorities. At
that stage, it was discovered that the appellant is not having
possession over the said land. Thereafter, the appellant filed an
application under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue
Code, 1959, before the Naib Tahsildar. The Naib Tahsildar vide order
dated 03.03.2020, disposed of the application observing that the State
Government has already issued a lease-deed in favour of some other
persons and also in favour of Gyanoday Higher Secondary School,
out of the above land, which has now constructed their school
building, therefore, he made a recommendation that another land of
equivalent size, may be allotted to the appellant. The appellant,
therefore, prayed in the writ petition that the respondents may be
either directed to allot another land of equal size to the appellant or
Signature Not Verified
SAN
grant compensation. In that regard, the appellant has submitted a
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
Date: 2021.04.01 17:32:58 IST
2 WA-357-2021
representation to the Collector and therefore, the Collector should be
required to decide the same.
The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition
observing that the petition involves disputed questions of facts and
that the appellant is not in possession of the land in dispute for last 20
years, then obviously he lost title as the persons who have been in
possession of the land since long period of time, may have acquired
title by way of adverse possession. The learned Single Judge,
however, granted liberty to the appellant to approach the Civil Court
for adjudication of his title.
Having regard to the facts of the case and considering that the
Naib Tahsildar has made a recommendation in favour of the
appellant, we at this stage, do not deem it appropriate to relegate the
appellant to avail the remedy of civil suit. This appeal is, therefore,
disposed of requiring the appellant to approach the Collector, Bhopal,
by making a comprehensive representation, who shall upon examining
the case of the appellant, decide as to whether or not the appellant can
be allotted another land of equivalent size, as recommended by the
Naib Tahsildar or granted compensation or why either of the reliefs
cannot be granted, shall be communicated to the appellant by a
speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of filing
of such representation.
With the aforesaid, this appeal is disposed of.
However, it goes without saying that if the appellant is not
satisfied with what is decided by the Collector, he would be at liberty
to avail his liberty before the competent Civil Court.
We make it clear that this Court has not expressed opinion on
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
Date: 2021.04.01 17:32:58 IST
3 WA-357-2021
the merits in either way.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (SANJAY DWIVEDI)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Prachi
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
Date: 2021.04.01 17:32:58 IST
