Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sukhnandan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 June, 2023

Author: Vivek Agarwal

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 15 th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 2394 of 2009

BETWEEN:-
1. SUKHNANDAN S/O SUKHRAM, AGED ABOUT 44
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS BHEEMPUR TEH
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RATNESH S/O SANTOSH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE KALAR , BUSINESS
BHEEMPUR TAHSIL BETUL DISTT. BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SAHDEV @ DANGADI (DEAD) SMT. RAJBALA
ARYA W/O LATE SAHDEV @ DANGI, AGED ABOUT
52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE KALAR,
BUSINESS VILLAGE BHEEMPUR TAHSIL BETUL
DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SAGAR ARYA S/O LATE SAHDEV @ DANGI, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BHEEMPUR,
TAHSIL BETUL DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

5. SUMIT ARYA S/O LATE SAHDEV @ DANGI, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, VILL. BHEEMPUR TAH.
BHEEMPUR DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SMT. SHABHANA PARVEEN W/O LATE IFTEKHAR
AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MUSALMAN OCUUPATION BUSINESS VILLAGE
BHEEMPUR TAHSIL BETUL DISTT. BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANAND NAYAK - ADVOCATE)

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH :
COLLECTOR DISTT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
6/15/2023 6:48:59 PM
2
2. UPPER COLLECTOR BETUL DISTRICT BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. NAIB TAHSILDAR CIRCLE BHEEMPUR, TAPPA
DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT BHEEMPUR
BHEEMPUR DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

WRIT PETITION No. 2228 of 2009

BETWEEN:-
1. RAKESH S/O LAKHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, VILLAGE BHIMPUR BHAISDEHI (MADHYA
PRADESH)

2. SHIV NARAYAN S/O MUNNA GOULI, AGED ABOUT
42 YEARS, VILLAGE BHIMPUR TAH. BHAISDEHI
DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRABHU S/O CHIRONJI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
VILLAGE BHIMPUR TAH. BHAISDEHI DISTT.
BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SMT. JYOTI W/O BADRI PRASAD GOULI, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, VILLAGE BHIMPUR TAH.
BHAISDEHI DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. LAKHAN S/O DURGA PRASAD GOULI, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, VILLAGE BHIMPUR TAH.
BHAISDEHI DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ANAND NAYAK - ADVOCATE)

AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVNUE DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COLLECTOR BETUL DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA
PRADESH)

3. NAIB TAHSILDAR BHEEMPUR TAH. BHAISADEHI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time:
6/15/2023 6:48:59 PM
3
DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SARPANCH/SECRETARY OCCUPATION: GRAM
PANCHAYAT BHEEMPUR BLOCK BHIMPUR
DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

These petitions coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER

These petitions have been filed being aggrieved of order dated 29.9.2007 passed by the Additional Collector, Betul in Revenue Case No.01A-39/2006- 2007 (State versus Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhimpur & Others) as well as the order dated 24.1.2009 passed by the Naib Tahsildar of Bhimpur, District Betul on the ground that in terms of the Circular issued by the Commissioner, Bhopal & Hoshangabad Division, Bhopal on 8.8.1995, the land on Patta was allotted by the Sarpanch of Bhimpur in favour of the petitioners. After availing loan from the financial institution(s), the petitioners constructed their houses and are running their occupation from the said building to earn their livelihood. The impugned order having been passed after 11 years of allotment of land on Patta is hit by the principles of limitation and in the light of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Ranveer Singh Since Dead Through Legal Representatives Kishori Singh & Others versus State of

Madhya Pradesh 2010 (4) M.P.L.J 178, the limitation prescribed for the revisional authority to exercise the revisional powers is 180 days from the date of the knowledge of illegality or impropriety and, therefore, the revision may be time barred and the Additional Collector, District Betul could not have exercised such revisional jurisdiction. In any case the equity is in favour of the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

6/15/2023 6:48:59 PM

petitioners and they are going to suffer irreparable loss as they constructed their hutments on the land allotted in their favour and are running their occupation from the said land.

Learned Government Advocate for the State submits that the impugned order is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. Annexure R/1 dated 8.8.1995 issued by the Commissioner, Bhopal & Hoshangabad Division, Bhopal is for residential purpose and identifies the beneficiaries as persons residing in far of rural areas. There is no provision for allotment of commercial land in favour of the landless. The whole scheme only targets those beneficiaries, who are not having residential accommodation and, therefore, the Sarpanch of Bhimpur committed an irregularity in passing the Resolution dated 26.1.1996 in pursuance of which the Patta was allotted in June, 1996 in favour of the petitioners and similarly situated persons. It is specifically mentioned that the Patta is being given for the purpose of running their business and there is no provision for grant of Patta for business in the said Circular issued by the Commissioner, Bhopal & Hoshangabad Division, Bhopal.

Reading from Annexure R/2, it is pointed out by learned Government Advocate for the State that the authorities had exercised the revisional jurisdiction in time and the Sub Divisional Officer had written a D.O to the Collector, District Betul on 6.12.1996 pointing out irregularities and requesting him to take the matter in Suo Motu Revision for correcting the irregularities in allotment of commercial place by the Sarpanch of Bhimpur and, therefore, the act of the State Authority in taking the matter in Revision is within the prescribed limitation of 180 days inasmuch as the petitioners have admitted vide Annexure P/7 that they were given allotment of the plots in June, 1996 and, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

6/15/2023 6:48:59 PM

therefore, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction within 180 days cannot be said to be time barred.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, three issues emerge for consideration, namely, the exercise of revisional authority by the Collector in pursuance of which, the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Collector, District Betul is hit by the law of limitation as prescribed by the Full Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Ranveer Singh Since Dead Through Legal Representatives Kishori Singh & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). The second issue is that since the petitioners admittedly obtained the loan from the authorised lending authority and constructed their commercial place for running their business, whether they can be suitably compensated. The third issue, which is ancillary and emerges for consideration is as to whether the Sarpanch of Bhimpur was authorised to allot the land for commercial purpose in pursuance of the Circular dated 8.8.1995.

As far as the first issue is concerned, since the matter was taken up and placed before the authority for taking in revision on 6.12.1996 i.e. within 180 days of allotment of land in favour of the petitioners in terms of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Ranveer Singh Since Dead Through Legal Representatives Kishori Singh & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the revisional power was exercised by the competent authority in terms of Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 within the prescribed period of limitation i.e.180 days from the date of knowledge of the illegality or impropriety and, therefore, the revision cannot be said to be barred by limitation.

As far as the second issue of the authority of Sarpanch is concerned, it

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

6/15/2023 6:48:59 PM

is nowhere mentioned in Circular dated 8.8.1995 in clear term that the Sarpanch was entitled to allot plots for business purposes. He was only entitled to allot plots for residential purposes and for the purposes of workshop to certain category of workers as mentioned in Paragraph No.5 of the said Policy and, therefore, the Resolution passed by the Sarpanch and the Gram Panchayat as contained in Annexure P/1 is illegal and cannot be given a seal of approval.

However, when it comes to balancing of equity then taking this fact into consideration this fact that the petitioners are in occupation of the concerned land allotted to them in the year 1996 and have constructed their work place after obtaining loan from the financial institution, the respondents are in agreement that the petitioners can be suitably compensated by allotting them appropriate place for their residence if they happen to be landless persons. It is clarified that while determining their status of the landless persons, the plots, which were allotted in their favour in the year 1996, shall not be treated as their property inasmuch as that allotment has been held to be inappropriate and illegal

by the Additional Collector, District Betul as well as by this Court.

It is expected that the Collector, District Betul shall cause an enquiry after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and shall pass an order in terms of the existing policy of the State Government to allot alternative piece of land for the purposes of construction of their houses and shall provide necessary amenities as are permissible under the Policy or shall permit them to dismantle their present structures and take the material to the allotted site.

Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of ninety days from the date of communication of this order and till then the parties may not be disturbed and the status-quo existing as on today shall continue to be maintained by the parties.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

6/15/2023 6:48:59 PM

In above terms, these writ petitions are disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

6/15/2023 6:48:59 PM