Suresh vs Ram Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 770 MP

                               1
                                                             MP-7-2022




        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         MP No.7 of 2022
              (Suresh and another vs Ramsingh and others)

Jabalpur, Dated 17.01.2022

      Heard through Video Conferencing.
      Shri Ishteyaq Husain, counsel for the petitioners.
      Heard on admission.
      The entire case of the petitioners revolves around the
weaknesses of the case of the respondent.

The ld. counsel prays that the order of Tahsildar dated 17.02.2021 passed by Tahsildar Sehore which has been confirmed in the appeal by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sehore vide order dated 27.08.2021 be set aside as the respondent No.1 has no right over the disputed land. But, when confronted to show his right over the land, no satisfactory reply could be given, instead, it is argued that earlier the respondent No.1 Ramsingh and his wife had filed a Civil Suit No.36-A/2010 (Annexure P/9) for injunction and restoration of possession which they lost.

In their second bid, the petitioner along with his associates had filed a Civil Suit No.63-A/2010 and successfully seek an order in their favour that they should not be dispossessed without following the due process of law (judgment dated 18.10.2012 [Annexure P/10]). Further, validity of the lease granted in favour of the respondent has also been disputed stating that it was against the law as well as the policy of the State as it was granted on a Charnoi land.

The ld. counsel for the petitioner referred to judgment of this Court in State of M.P. vs Nilendra Pratap Singh 2003(5) M.P.L.J. 342 which was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme

MP-7-2022

Court where the State Government itself submitted an undertaking that Charnoi land will not be allotted to any landless person. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported as State of Madhya Pradesh vs Nilendra Pratap Singh (2009) 17 SCC 780.

The crux of the matter is that there is nothing before this Court to substantiate legality of the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land and the orders of the subordinate courts which are impugned in this petition show that they are following due process of law.

Therefore, the relief claimed through this petition cannot be granted to the petitioners. Consequently, admission is declined.

Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.

(Virender Singh) JUDGE vinod Digitally signed by VINOD VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.01.18 11:26:47 +05'30'