Anurag Kumar Jain vs Sub Divisional Officer Revenue
2021 Latest Caselaw 946 MP

                                                             1
        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                W.P. 19981/2020

    (Anurag Kumar Jain and Ors. Vs. SDO, Revenue & Ors.)
Gwalior dated 22.03.2021
      Shri S.N. Seth, learned counsel for the petitioners.
      Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Government Advocate
for the respondents No. 1 & 11/State on advance copy.

Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 10.

Respondents No. 2 to 10 have filed their return. Issue notice to the respondents No. 1 & 11. At this stage, Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Government Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 11/State, hence, notices are not required to be issued to them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners presses prayer for grant of interim relief as mentioned in the para 8 of writ petition and has also filed separate application bearing I.A. No. 9005/2020 for the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that instant petition has been preferred against the order dated 09/12/2020 (Annexure P/1), by which, trust formulated by the petitioners in the name of Panna Lal Ayodhya Prasad Dharmshala Trust, Sadar Bazar, Bhind has been cancelled on the basis of order passed in F.A. No. 169/1995 vide judgment and decree dated 14/07/1997. He further submits that respondent No. 1 is not authorized to usurp the jurisdiction and cancel the order passed by the Registrar, Public Trust formulating a trust vide order dated 06/08/2016.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. 19981/2020

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 10 opposed the prayer for grant of interim relief and submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition has already been travelled upto the Apex Court. The present petitioners are not Trusties of the original Trust and therefore, they have no locus standi to challenge the order impugned before this Court. The petitioners have not been able to show irreparable injury which may be caused to them in the event interim order has not been passed staying the order dated 09/12/2020 ( Annexure P/1).

Taking into consideration the fact that disputed question of facts are involved in this case as well as return on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 11 is still awaited and also looking to the fact that learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to make out a case for grant of interim relief, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to grant interim relief to the petitioners.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 9005/2020, an application for grant of interim relief is hereby rejected.

within four weeks.

List this matter after four weeks.

(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge

Durgekar*