Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Usha Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 24th OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 1264 of 2022
Between:-
1. SMT. USHA RAJPUT W/O LATE SHRI SURAJ SINGH
RAJPUT , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
FARMER RESIDENT OF GRAM PIPARIA, PARIYAT
TEHSIL ADHARTAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT HEMLATA RAJPUT D/O LATE SURAJ SINGH
RAJPUT , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
FARMER R/O GRAM- PIPARIYA PARIYAT, TEHSIL-
ADHARTAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RUPESH RAJPUT S/O LATE SURAJ SINGH RAJPUT ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER
R/O GRAM- PIPARIYA PARIYAT, TEHSIL-
ADHARTAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KUMARI SHWETA RAJPUT D/O LATE SURAJ
SINGH RAJPUT , AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O GRAM- PIPARIYA
PARIYAT, TEHSIL-ADHARTAL, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KUMARI EKTA RAJPUT D/O LATE SURAJ SINGH
RAJPUT , AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
FARMER R/O GRAM- PIPARIYA PARIYAT, TEHSIL-
ADHARTAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAUNAK YADAV, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR JABALPUR DISTRICT-JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER JABALPUR DISTRICT-
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. TEHSILDAR ADHARTAL DISTRICT-JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ROHIT JAIN, GOVT. ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2022.03.29 17:46:13 IST
following:
2
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s) :-
"i. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus respondent No.4
may kindly be directed to decide the application submitted by the
petitioner under Section 109, 110 R/w 164 of MPLR Code forthwith.
ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus respondent No.3
and 4 may kindly be directed to correct the revenue entry as per
judgment and decree passed in civil appeal no.07/17 passed by 11th
Addl. Session Judge, Jabalpur.
iii. Any other writ or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in
the circumstances of the case."
Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed
being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents No.3 and 4 in not
correcting the revenue entry in Survey No.101/2 and 101/8 area respectively 3.035
and 2.719 hectare, new number 140 total area, 5,745 hectare, NB 218, PHN 21
Gram Piparia Pariyat, District Jabalpur although a judgment and decree has already
been passed in favour of petitioners on 12.07.2017 in Civil Appeal No.07/17 by the
11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur.
It is submitted that the petitioners have filed an application for mutation on
the basis of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated
12.07.2017 in Civil Suit No.07/2017 which is pending consideration before the
concerning Tehsildar. Despite of several efforts no further proceedings have been
drawn up. It is argued that the case has been registered by the concerning
Tehsildar on 28.11.2020 as Revenue Case No.0066/B-121/2020-21, but despite
lapse of more than 1 year and 4 months, the revenue records have not been
corrected. An innocuous prayer is made to direct the Authorities to consider and
decide the pending application within a stipulated time frame.
Counsel appearing for the respondents/State has vehemently opposed the
application stating that there is a remedy available to the petitioners to approach the
Signature Not Verified
superior authorities i.e. the SDO or the Collector. It is submitted that without
SAN
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2022.03.29 17:46:13 IST approaching the superior Authorities, the petitioners have directly filed the present
writ petition before this Court. It is argued that in terms of provisions contained in
M.P. Land Revenue Code against inaction on the part of the authorities in deciding
the application, the petitioners have not approached the superior authorities in
terms of the aforesaid provisions. In such circumstances, no relief can be extended
to the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From a perusal of the record, it is an admitted position that an alternative
efficacious remedy of approaching the superior authorities is available to the
petitioners. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, without first exhausting the statutory alternative and
efficacious remedy available to them. When there is an alternative remedy
available, judicial prudence demands that the Court should refrain from
entertaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In
such circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioners.
However, the petitioners are always at liberty to approach the superior
Authorities i.e. the S.D.O. or the learned Collector for redressal of their grievances.
Disposed of accordingly.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
AM
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR
MUKHOPADHYAY
Date: 2022.03.29 17:46:13 IST
