Madhya Pradesh High Court
Patiya Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2022
Author: Arun Kumar Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
ON THE 2nd OF AUGUST, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 2694 of 2022
Between:-
1. PATIYA BAI W/O PAL SINGH GOND, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
VILLAGE LAKHAURA TEHSIL PUSHPRAJGARH
DISTRICT ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUGHARAN BAI W/O SHANKAR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
R/O VILLAGE KOHKA,TEHSIL
PUSHPRAJGARH,DISTRICT ANUPPUR (M.P)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SAMARJEET S/O LATE SHANKAR SINGH GOND,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE KOHKA,TEHSIL
PUSHPRAJGARH,DISTRICT ANUPPUR (M.P)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KALYAN SINGH S/O NARBADA SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE KOHKA,TEHSIL
PUSHPRAJGARH,DISTRICT ANUPPUR (M.P)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.K. PATEL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR ANUPPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE)
PUSHPRAJGARH DISTRICT ANUPPUR (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. TEHSILDAR TEHSIL PUSHPRAJGARH
PUSHPRAJGARH DISTRICT ANUPPUR (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 8/3/2022
11:13:20 AM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMIT GARG, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE.)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of appropriate writ/direction to respondent No.3/ Tahsildar, Tahsil-
Pushprajgarh, District Anuppur for deciding the Revenue Case No. 10/A-6-
A/2017-18 for the execution of judgment/decree passed by the trial Court so
also the order passed by Collector with regard to compliance of
judgment/decree dated 12/10/2017 within stipulated time period.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputed land was
recorded in the name of forefathers of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, therefore, the
petitioners have title and possession over the disputed land, however, the
Tahsildar, vide order dated 20/05/1992 arbitarily and illegally recorded the said
land as Najul Bhumi. Thereafter, SDO, Rajendragram, vide order dated
23/09/1992 dismissed the order of Tahsildar, which clearly indicates that the
disputed land belongs to the petitioners. Learned trial Court also passed
judgment and decree dated 12/10/2017 in favour of the petitioners by holding
that the petitioner No.1 is the land owner of land bearing Khasra No. 95/350/1
ad-measuring area 880 sq.ft.; whereas; petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the land
owners of land bearing Khasra No. 95/350/1 ad-measuring 0.578 hectare and
granted permanent injunction in favour of the petitioners and directed the
respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over
the suit land. Thereafter, the petitioners, have filed an application, vide Revenue
Case No. 10/A-6-A/2017-18 before Tahsildar for the correction of land
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 8/3/2022
11:13:20 AM
records, however the said application is not decided till date. Respondent No.1,
vide order dated 22/03/2021 directed the respondent No.2 for recording the
name of petitioner in the disputed land and correct the land records as per the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Inspite of that Revenue Case
No. 10/A-6-A/2017-18 is still pending before the respondent No.3/Tahsildar,
Tahsil-Pushprajgarh, District Anuppur. The petitioners have submitted several
representations to the respondents regarding encroachment done by the
outsiders over the disputed land, however, nothing was done by the
respondents in this regard. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the
petitioners prays for issuance of appropriate writ/direction to respondent No.3/
Tahsildar, Tahsil-Pushprajgarh, District Anuppur for deciding the Revenue
Case No. 10/A-6-A/2017-18 for the execution of judgment/decree passed by
the trial Court so also the order passed by Collector with regard to compliance
of judgment/decree dated 12/10/2017 within stipulated time period.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has not opposed the
contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the
considered opinion of this Court, present petition deserves to be and is hereby
allowed and respondent No.3/ Tahsildar, Tahsil-Pushprajgarh, District
Anuppur is directed to decide the Revenue Case No. 10/A-6-A/2017-18
regarding execution of judgment/decree passed by the trial Court so also the
order passed by Collector with regard to compliance of judgment/decree dated
12/10/2017 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of the order passed today.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the respondents for information and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 8/3/2022
11:13:20 AM
necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
skt JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANTOSH
KUMAR TIWARI
Signing time: 8/3/2022
11:13:20 AM
