Ranjana vs Subhash
2022 Latest Caselaw 1513 MP

                               1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
                                BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                      ON THE 2nd OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                MISC. PETITION No. 4506 of 2021

        Between:-
        RANJANA W/O VIRENDRA KULMI , AGED
        ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
        GRAM MAHETWADA TEH. MAHESHWAR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI DIPESH SETHI, ADVOCATE )

        AND

1.      SUBHASH S/O RAKHABCHAND , AGED ABOUT
        55   YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULUTRE
        GRAM MAHETWADA TEH. MAHESHWAR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      RAMESHWER S/O DHANNALAL , AGED
        ABOUT      75    YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        AGRICULTURE GRAM MAHETWADA TEH.
        MAHESHWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      PURSHOTTAM S/O JAGANNATH , AGED
        ABOUT      52    YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        AGRICULTURE GRAM MAHETWADA TEH.
        MAHESHWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.      KRISHNA GOPAL S/O PEMA , AGED ABOUT 65
        YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
        MAHETWADA TEH. MAHESHWAR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

5.      PRABHUDAYAL S/O NARAYAN , AGED ABOUT
        55   YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
        GRAM MAHETWADA TEH. MAHESHWAR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.      MAGILAL S/O HAMIR , AGED ABOUT 80
        YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
        MAHETWADA TEH. MAHESHWAR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

7.      BLHAWANI SHANKAR S/O MANGILAL , AGED
        ABOUT      45     YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        AGRICULTURE GRAM MAHETWADA TEH.
        MAHESHWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

8.      RAJNATHA S/O NARAYAN , AGED ABOUT 62
        YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
        MAHETWADA TEH. MAHESHWAR (MADHYA
        PRADESH)
                                      2
                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
          (BY SHRI )
                       (Heard through Video Conferencing)
         This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                      ORDER

Heard on admission.

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12/11/2021 passed by the Additional Collector, Khargone in case no. 18/Revision/2021-22, whereby the order dated 12/08/2021 passed by the Tehsildar, Maheshwar, has been set aside.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents have filed an application under sections 131 and 132 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1986 ( in short " MPLRC") before the Tehsildar, Maheshwar, District-Khargone against the present petitioner and sought relief of reopening of the disputed Vahi Vati way. The Tehsildar conducted spot inspection in presence of both the parties and dismissed the application under section 32 of the MPLRC filed by the respondent vide order dated 12/08/2021. Against which, the respondents preferred revision before the Additional Collector, Khargone and the Additional Collector, Khargone set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar, hence the petitioner preferred present petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 12/11/2021 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and facts of the case. Learned Revisional Court has erred in law in allowing revision preferred by the respondents without properly appreciating the facts of the case and without appreciating the provision of section 131 of the MPLRC and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, the order passed by the Revisional Court is not maintainable and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

On perusal for the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, Khargone, it reveals that the Additional Collector has given sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Learned Revisional Court has

considered all the submissions made by both the parties and passed detailed order considering all the grounds raised by the petitioner in his application. By way of the impugned order, the Additional Collector has also granted right to customary way and also directed non-applicant/petitioner to remove all the obstructions in the right of the customary of the respondents. The impugned order passed by the Courts below is just, proper and according to law and the Courts below has not committed any error in deciding the petitioner's revision under section 50 of the MPLRC, therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order at this stage.

Accordingly, present Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. CC as per rules.

                                                                          (ANIL VERMA)
Digitally signed by AMOL N                                                   JUDGE
MAHANAG           amol
Date: 2022.02.03 10:52:46
+05'30'