Saligram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14076 MP

                                                        1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT GWALIOR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                                             ON THE 28 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 1839 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SALIGRAM S/O LATE SHRI LAFURI, AGED ABOUT
                                 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
                                 BARAUA NOORABAD       GWALIOR    (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    RAMNATH S/O LATE SHRI LAFURI, AGED ABOUT
                                 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KRASHI GRAM BAROA
                                 NOORABAD DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    BAHADUR SINGH S/O BHAGIRATH OCCUPATION:
                                 KRASHI GRAM BAROA NOORABAD DISTRICT
                                 GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    RAMAKHTYAR   SINGH  S/O  BHAGIRATH
                                 OCCUPATION: KRASHI   GRAM   BAROA
                                 NOORABAD DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONERS
                           (NONE PRESENT)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRAMUKH SACHIV RAJASWA MANTRALAYA,
                                 VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    COLLECTOR GWALIOR      DISTRICT   GWALIOR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    TEHS I LD AR GWALIOR   DISTRICT   GWALIOR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI N.S. TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHID KHAN
Signing time: 29-08-2023
10:55:19 AM
                                                                  2
                                 Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                  ORDER

1 . The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-

"7-1 ;gfd] ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu djrs gSa fd ;kfpdkdrkZx.k }kjk fn, x,s ,usDtj ih@1 ds vkosnu i= ij pkgh xbZ lgk;rk gsrq jsLiksaMsV~l dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd og mDr ,usDtj ih@1 ds vkosnu i= ij pkgh lgk;rk ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks iznku djsaA 7-2 ;gfd] vU; U;k;kfpr lgk;rk tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks jsLiksaMsaV~l ls fnykbZ tkosA"

2. From the pleadings, it appears that the petitioners were granted lease in respect of Survey No. 984 and 986/2 area 0.209 hectare and survey No. 96 area

0.17 hectare. However, the said lease deed was cancelled on the ground that lease deed has been obtained by placing misleading facts. The petitioners were also prosecuted for the said offence in a complaint filed by Ramautar, but the said complaint was dismissed by judgment dated 23.07.2012 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.5301/2006 and it has been held that the complainant has failed to prove that the petitioner or any other person had committed offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

3 . It further appears that petitioner earlier filed a Writ Petition No.2715/2018 which is dismissed in limine by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2022 by making following observations:-

"However, during the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the order, by which the lease deed was cancelled, has not been filed. Even otherwise, entire writ petition has been vaguely drafted. The petitioners have claimed that the present petition has been filed against the order dated 23.07.2012 passed by JMFC, Gwalior in Criminal Case No.5301/2006. Surprisingly by the said judgment, the petitioner was acquitted. Why such false Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 29-08-2023 10:55:19 AM

declaration has been given in the writ petition, it is not known. Once the lease deed granted in favour of the petitioners has already been rejected, then his name cannot be recorded in the revenue record. The findings given in criminal case are not binding on revenue proceedings. The petitioners have neither disclosed the date of rejection of lease deed nor have placed the same on record nor have given any reason as to why the said order was bad.

Be that whatever it may.

In absence of the order of cancellation of lease, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine."

4 . On perusal of pleadings and documents appended with the petition and with the assistance of Government Advocate, it appears that earlier said petition was dismissed on the ground that petition is vaguely drafted and impugned order whereby lease, if any, granted in favour of the petitioners was cancalled but the said impugned order was not attached with the file. Incidentally, no opportunity was granted to file afresh. However; still petition has been filed.

5. It further appears that no impugned order has been filed by the petitioners again whereby the petitioners can demonstrate their grievance. Beside that, nature of reliefs claimed appears to be misdirected. Petitioners are seeking directions for consideration over the representation by the revenue authorities.

6. Therefore, in absence of cause of action, violation of any fundamental / statutory rights of the petitioners and corresponding duties omitted to perform by respondents, no case is made out prima facie for interference.

7. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 29-08-2023 10:55:19 AM

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Rashid

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHID KHAN Signing time: 29-08-2023 10:55:19 AM