Veerendra Singh Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 793 MP

      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1
                      WP 1132/2021
      Veerendra Singh Jadon vs. State of MP and Ors.

Gwalior, Dated :17/03/2021

       Shri MS Yadav, Counsel for the petitioner.

       Shri Abhishek Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the respondents

No. 1 to 4/ State.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

has been filed against the order dated 12/01/2021 (Annexure P1)

passed by Secretary, Administrative Committee, Gram Panchayat

Bajranggarh, Janpapad Panchayat Guna, District Guna in Case

No.012-D-21, by which a direction has been given to the

petitioner to remove his possession over the property in dispute.

It is the case of the petitioner that Gattulal and Babulal,

sons of Nathulal filed a civil suit in respect of the property in

dispute before the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Class-I,

Guna, District Guna against the father of the petitioner, which

was registered as Civil Suit No.30-A/1969, alleging that the

father of the petitioner has encroached upon the disputed

property which was marked as ''A,B,C,D'' in the plaint by

constructing a boundary wall and accordingly, the suit was filed

for restoration of possession by removing the boundary wall as

well as issuance of mandatory injunction. The said civil suit was

decreed on 08/04/1970 and the father of the petitioner was

directed to remove the boundary wall from the plot in question THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 WP 1132/2021 Veerendra Singh Jadon vs. State of MP and Ors.

and a mandatory injunction was also issued against the father of

the petitioner, however, the copy of the said judgment and decree

has not been placed on record.

It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the

respondent no.5 who is claiming the title through Gattulal and

Babulal filed an application before the revenue authorities,

claiming that a decree was passed against the father of the

petitioner in the year 1970 and now, the petitioner has once again

taken possession of the property in dispute in an illegal and

unauthorized manner and accordingly, the respondent no.3 by

letter dated 11/1/2021 directed the Sarpanch and Secretary of

Gram Panchayat Bajranggarh, Janpad Panchayat Guna, District

Guna to remove the encroachment and inform the CEO, Janpad

Panchayat Guna. Accordingly, Gram Panchayat Bajranggarh,

Janpad Panchayat Guna, District Guna has issued the impugned

order dated 12/01/2021 requiring the petitioner to remove the

encroachment. It is submitted that the impugned order dated

12/01/2021 has been issued by respondent no.4 without issuing

any notice or giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

as well as without carrying out the demarcation. It is further

submitted that the decree was passed about 50 years back and

now, it is not executable and further, the respondents are not the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 WP 1132/2021 Veerendra Singh Jadon vs. State of MP and Ors.

executing authorities.

During the course of argument, it is submitted by the

Counsel for the petitioner that that since the petitioner is in

possession of the encroached part of property for the last more

than 60-70 years, therefore, now, he has perfected his title by

way of adverse possession and decree cannot be executed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Although the petitioner has not filed the copy of the

application which was filed by the respondent no.5 but from the

contents of order dated 11/01/2021 (Annexure P5) and order

dated 12/01/2021 (Annexure P1), it is clear that the respondent

no.5 had claimed that now the petitioner has encroached upon

the property in respect of which a decree was already passed in

the year 1970. Thus, it is clear that the respondent no.5 has not

admitted that the decree which was passed in the year 1970, was

never executed and the possession was not never left by the

father of the petitioner. Various disputed questions of fact are

involved in the present case. Further, admittedly, there is a

decree against the father of the petitioner and the petitioner,

being the legal heir is bound by it. He has no authority

whatsoever to flout the decree by encroaching upon the land.

Furthermore, for availing the equitable relief under Article 226 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 WP 1132/2021 Veerendra Singh Jadon vs. State of MP and Ors.

of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has to establish his

right or title in the matter. Once the petitioner has failed to

establish his right or title, this Court is of the considered opinion

that this Court can deny to entertain the writ petition filed by the

petitioner.

Since the petitioner has no right or title over the land in

question and he has not raised any objection to the letter issued

by Secretary, Administrative Committee, Gram Panchayat

Bajranggarh, Janpad Panchayat Guna, District Guna in Case No.

012-D-21, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and hence, it is

dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge

MKB

MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2021.03.19 18:35:48 +05'30'