Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anju Thakur vs General Public / State Of Madhya ... on 14 July, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 14 th OF JULY, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 1356 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. ANJU THAKUR W/O JAGDISH PRASAD
THAKUR R/O. THAKUR MOHALLA SEONI MALWA
HOSHANGABAD (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANISH THAKUR S/O LATE JAGDISH PRASAD
TH A K U R THAKUR MOHALL, SEONI MALWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SHAMBHU PRASAD S/O NARAYAN PRASAD
THAKUR MOHALL, SEONI MALWA HOSHANGBAD
PRESENTLY R/O BUS STOP NO. 6 BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. PIYUSH MODI S/O NAROTTAM MODI, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, WARD NO. 11 SEONI MALWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SADHANA MODI W/O PIYUSH MODI, AGED ABOUT
49 YEARS, WARD NO. 11 SEONI MALWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. MANISH MODI S/O NAROTTAM MODI, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, WARD NO. 11 SEONI MALWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI MANOJ SHARMA - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI GOURAV
TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS)
AND
GENERAL PUBLIC / STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
COLLECTOR HOSHANGABAD DISTT. HOSHANGABAD
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GIRISH KEKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVASHISH
MISHRA
Signing time: 7/14/2023
7:44:06 PM
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The instant review petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the
writ Court has committed a mistake in dismissing the petition on the ground that
though the Union of India was a necessary party but was not impleaded as
respondent.
2. However, Shri Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners were neither informed nor granted any
opportunity of hearing and nobody has raised this objection that the petition
suffers from non-joinder of necessary party. He submits that if opportunity had
been granted and that would have not been availed by the petitioners, then the
petition can be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, but
that situation had not come before the petitioners and, therefore, the finding of
the writ Court dismissing the petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary
party is apparently a mistake on the part of the writ Court and, therefore, the
order needs to be recalled. He submits that the petition was also dismissed on
the ground of limitation considering the fact that though the petitioners were the
subsequent purchasers and original owner filed a suit which was decreed and
that decree was affirmed and attained finality by which the entry made before
the name of original purchaser i.e. Fauzi Padav was deleted and the Court has
found that the direction made in the decree has attained finality, therefore, that
entry should not have been made in the revenue record. He submits that once
the Court has observed and taken note of the judgment and decree and also
observed that it had attained finality, then the question of limitation does not
come in way of the petitioners for the reason that they are subsequent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVASHISH
MISHRA
Signing time: 7/14/2023
7:44:06 PM
purchasers and entry of Fauzi Padav made before their name, the same could
not have been done because that entry once deleted in pursuance to the
judgment and decree of civil Court, cannot be subsequently added even in the
subsequent sale-deed which has been executed by the original owner like the
present case in which the petitioners have purchased the land from the original
owner. As such, the observation of the writ Court dismissing the petition on the
ground of limitation is also contrary to record and mistake is also apparent on
the face of record and it can be considered that the finding is perverse.
3. On the other hand, Shri Kekre, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the respondent/State has opposed the submission made by the counsel for
the petitioners and submitted that the order of writ Court does not suffer from
any material irregularity and the mistake which is being pointed out by the
petitioners is not apparent on the face of record and no ground for review is
made out. Review petition according to him is without any substance and is
liable to be dismissed.
4. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and
perusal of order of writ Court dated 31.10.2017 passed in W.P. No.15190 of
2015 especially the ground raised by the counsel for the petitioners, I am also of
the opinion that the order passed by the writ Court suffers from material
irregularity and the same according to me is liable to be recalled. Therefore, the
order dated 31.10.2017 passed in the said writ petition is recalled. W.P.
No.15190 of 2017 is restored to its original number.
5. Registry is directed to list W.P. No.15190 of 2017 for fresh hearing
before appropriate Bench.
6. With the aforesaid, this review petition is allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVASHISH
MISHRA
Signing time: 7/14/2023
7:44:06 PM
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEVASHISH
MISHRA
Signing time: 7/14/2023
7:44:06 PM
