Deceased Raichand S/O Dungaji ... vs Rama
2022 Latest Caselaw 1687 MP

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
                             BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                   ON THE 7th OF FEBRUARY, 2022




                  MISC. PETITION No. 304 of 2022

     Between:-
     DECEASED RAICHAND S/O DUNGAJI BHIL THROUGH LRS.
1.   ISHWAR S/O LATE SHRI RAICHAND VILLAGE BHAISOLA
     TEHSIL BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     DECEASED RAICHAND S/O DUNGAJI BHIL THROUGH LRS. LALA
2.   S/O LATE SHRI RAICHAND VILLAGE BHAISOLA TEHSIL
     BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     DECEASED RAICHAND S/O DUNGAJI BHIL THROUGH LRS.
3.   GOPAL S/O LATE SHRI RAICHAND VILLAGE BHAISOLA TEHSIL
     BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     DECEASED RAICHAND S/O DUNGAJI BHIL THROUGH LRS.
4.   BHARAT S/O LATE SHRI RAICHAND VILLAGE BHAISOLA
     TEHSIL BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     DECEASED RAICHAND S/O DUNGAJI BHIL THROUGH LRS.
5.   SUHAGBAI W/O LATE SHRI RAICHAND VILLAGE BHAISOLA
     TEHSIL BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                  .....PETITIONER
     (BY SHRI AKSHAY KELAPURE, ADVOCATE )

     AND

     RAMA S/O DUNGAJI VILLAGE BHAISOLA TEHSIL BADNAWAR
1.
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
     RESHAMBAI D/O LATE SHRI RAICHAND W/O BABULAL BHIL
2.
     VILLAGE PIPLIPADA, TEHSIL BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     BAGDIBAI D/O LATE SHRI RAICHAND W/O RAMESH BHIL
3.   VILLAGE BIDPADA, NEAR SANWARIYAJI MANDIR, TEHSIL
     BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     PAPPUBAI D/O LATE SHRI RAICHAND BHIL BHAISOLAWALA
4.   W/O GOPAL VILLAGE KHAMLIPADA, TEHSIL BADNAWAR
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
     VISHNUBAI D/O LATE SHRI RAICHAND BHIL BHAISOLAWALA
5.   W/O SANJAY VILLAGE DOKLYAPADA, TEHSIL BADNAWAR
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
     BHULIBAI D/O LATE SHRI RAICHAND BHIL BHAISOLAWALA
6.   W/O SANJAY GRAM CHO, TEHSIL BADNAWAR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
     SHANKAR S/O DUNGA BHIL VILLAGE BHAISOLA, TEHSIL
7.
     BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8.   LAXMAN S/O DUNGA BHIL VILLAGE BHAISOLA, TEHSIL
     BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
    SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) SUB DIVISION
9.
    BADNAWAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
    ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER INDORE DIVISION (MADHYA
10.
    PRADESH)
                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
   (BY SHRI )
                 (Heard through Video Conferencing)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

                               ORDER

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner/s under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15/12/2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Indore, whereby the order dated 23/05/2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Badnawar, District - Dhar has been upheld by which, the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 Rama against the order dated 22/09/2014 passed by the Tehsildar, Badnawar dismissing his application under section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code ( in short " MPLRC"),

2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent no. 1 Rama has instituted a civil suit no. 22-A/2017 against the petitioner and other respondents for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession, which has been decreed in favour of the respondent no. 1 and he was declared as sole owner of the disputed land. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 Rama, after expiry of almost five years, filed an application under section 250 of MPLRC and prayed for delivery of possession dispossessing the present petitioner/s. Present petitioner/s filed objection in the matter and the Tehsildar dismissed the said application vide order dated 22/09/2014. Respondent no. 1 Rama challenged the said order by way of appeal under section 44(1) of the MPLRC before the Sub-Divisional Officer ( Renenue), Badnawar ( in short " the SDO"), which was allowed by the order dated 23/05/2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Indore, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 15/12/2021. Hence, present petition before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the Appellate Court have erred in law in allowing the claim of respondent njo. 1 Rama ignoring that he filed civil suit claiming for relief of possession along with other reliefs, but the relief of possession has not been awarded to the respondent no. 1 and vide judgment and decree dated 07/04/2008, it is nowhere mentioned that the petitioner should be dispossessed. The petitioners are in possession of the disputed land from nearabout 100 years and they became bhumi swami themselves by acquiring title by adverse possession. The petitioners have also instituted a suit, arising out of which, Second Appeal no. 2487/2019 is pending before this High Court. Both the Appellate Revenue Courts wrongfully applied the provision of section 250 of the MPLRC Restoration of possession cannot be granted by the Revenue Authority. It is a matter of jurisdiction of Civil Court. As per the section 158 of MPLRC, respondent no. 1 cannot be considered as bhumi swami. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Revenue Authorities are illegal, arbitrary and adverse, which are liable to be set aside.

4. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Indore, it reveals that the Civil Judge, Class-II, Badnawar has passed the judgment and decree dated 07/04/2008, whereby respondent no. 1 was declared sole owner and title holder of the suit property, but nothing has been mentioned in the said judgment that the present petitioners and their ancestral are in possession of the suit property for more than 100 years. As per the judgment of the Civil Court, respondent no. 1 Rama was declared as sole owner of the suit property. As per the provision of section 250 of the MPLRC, the only owner of the land (bhumi swami) are his successor in interest, which has been improperly dispossessed, can apply for reinstatement. The petitioners are not the bhumi swami of the suit property, therefore, they cannot be get the benefit of section 250 of the MPLRC. Respondent no. 1 Rama is the registered owner of the suit property and his name has been mentioned in kista khatoni and panchshala khasra. of the said land, but the application filed under section 250 of the MPLRC has been dismissed by the Tehsildar, hence the order dated 22/09/2014 passed by the Tehsildar was illegal and bad in law, therefore, the SDO has rightly set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar and the Additional Commissioner, Indore has also rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners.

5. The impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Indore and the Sub-divisional Officer ( Revenue), Badnawar are just, proper and also according the judgment passed by the Civil Court, therefore, the Additional Commissioner, Indore and the SDO ( Revenue) Badnawar have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders.

6. In light of the aforesaid discussions as also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders.

7. Present petition sans merit, is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE

Digitally signed by AMOL N MAHANAG Date: 2022.02.08 17:06:26 +05'30'