Rampal Mishra vs Saroj Pandey
2022 Latest Caselaw 7453 MP

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR

                        BEFORE
            HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO


        MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 6226 OF 2018


     Between:-
     Rampal Mishra
     S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Mishra
     R/o Dhawari, Tehsil Ragurajnagar
     District Satna (M.P.)

                                        ................Petitioner


     (BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR DUBEY, ADVOCATE)

     AND

     Saroj Pandey
     W/o Devnarayan Pandey
     Aged - Major
     R/o Near City Kotwali,
     Gausala Chowk Road
     Satna, Tehsil- Raghuraj Nagar,
     District Satna (M.P.)

                                        .............Respondent

     (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
________________________________________________________

          Order reserved on   :    28.04.2022
          Order passed on     :    19.05.2022
__________________________________________________________
                                     (2)


      This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed
the following judgment:-

                                ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by original petitioner Raghuvansh

Prasad Tiwari (since dead and substituted by his legal heir) being

aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-3) dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Sub

Divisional officer, Raghuraj Nagar, District Satna in Case No.

240/Appeal/2009-10 and also order (Annexure P-4) dated 26.9.2018

passed in Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, Link Court Satna/Sidhi

in Case No. 809/Appeal/2010-11.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are that the original

petitioner had filed an application under Section 250 of M.P. Land

Revenue Code (for short MPLRC) before the Tehsildar in respect of part

share of land admeasuring 40 x 60 = 2400 square feet bearing Araji No.

502/1Ka situated at Dhawari, District Satna alleging that he has received

the said land from Pawaidaar Guru Sahab Vishshar Prasad of village

Nipaniya, Rewa in the year 1950. He is in continuous possession of the

said land since year 1950. He is the owner and is in possession of the

said land and he has constructed a Kachcha house and planted trees over

the same. The said land has been renumbered as 502/1/Ka/1A/1/3. It was

further alleged that the respondent is trying to take possession from the

petitioner and to make construction over the said land.

3. The Tehsildar issued summons to the respondent. The respondent

appeared and filed her reply. The Tehsildar vide order (Annexure P-2)

dated 20.8.2010 decided the application in favour of the petitioner. Being

aggrieved thereby the respondent filed an appeal before the Sub

Divisional Officer, which has been allowed vide order (Annexure P-3)

dated 4.3.2011.

4. The original petitioner challenged the order passed by the Sub

Divisional Officer before Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division,

Rewa by way of filing an appeal under Section 44(2) of the MPLRC,

which has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner vide order

(Annexure P-4) dated 26.9.2018 affirming the order passed by the Sub

Divisional Officer, hence this petition.

5. During the pendency of this petition, the original petitioner has died

on 24.6.2021 and this Court vide order dated 22.3.2022 directed to

substitute his name by his legal heir.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned

order is bad in law as the findings recorded by the Courts arecwrong and

perverse. The spot Panchnama was prepared by Patwari on 26.2.2010. He

found that the petitioner is in possession of part share of Khasra No. 502

situated at village Dhawari, Tehsil Raghuraj nagar, Satna. It was also

found that the petitioner has constructed a house over the said land and

he is residing there since 20 year, this fact has been overlooked by both

the Courts below. It is further submitted that the Tehsildar has rightly

passed the order dated 28.8.2010 and directed the respondent to get her

title decided in civil suit. The revenue Court has no power to decide the

title of the land. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed to set aside the

impugned orders.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The Tahsildar in the

order dated 20.8.2010 has observed that it is clear from the evidence

adduced by the petitioner and the report of Patwari that the petitioner is

was possession since long time, therefore, directed the respondent to get

her title declared by filing a civil suit and thereafter to get the possession

of the disputed land. Learned Additional Commissioner has observed that

in the application under Section 250 of the MPLRC, the petitioner has

not mentioned the particulars as to on which date the respondent took the

possession of the disputed land and he is the owner of the disputed land.

As per the provision of Section 250 of the MPLRC, the applicant should

be the owner of the land and it should be specifically mentioned as to on

what date and to what extent the encroachment has been made over the

disputed land. In the present case, Tehsildar conducted demarcation on

26.6.2009. As per the demarcation report, the petitioner encroached over

the land bearing Araji No. 502/1Ka/1A/2 of the respondent. Tehsildar

accepted the possession of the appellant but ignored the demarcation

conducted by himself and passed the order. In the demarcation order, he

observed the appellant as encroacher. The Sub Divisional Officer has

passed the order considering the overall facts and circumstances of the

case.

8. There are concurrent findings of both the Courts below that the

respondent had purchased the suit property by registered sale deed. In my

considered opinion, there is no illegality or perversity in the orders

passed by the Courts below. I do not find any ground to interfere in the

impugned order. The petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

(Smt. Anjuli Palo) Judge

PB Digitally signed by PRADYUMNA BARVE Date: 2022.05.19 18:26:46 +05'30'