Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 4 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 1501 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MANGILAL S/O SHREE BAPUJI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM GOYALKHURD,
TEHSIL UJJAIN DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI AJAY BAGADIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS MEHUL SHUKLA,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M.P. HOUSING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. COLLECTOR UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ASSESSING
OFFICER TEHSIL KOTHI MAHAL, DISTRICT
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. TEHSILDAR DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/5/2023
6:12:57 PM
2
( SHRI SUNIL JAIN SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI KUSHAGRA JAIN,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed being
aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2023 passed in Writ Petition
No.15654/2021.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is the registered owner of the
land bearing survey no. 30 admeasuring 0.470 hectare situated at Village
Goyalkhurd, Teh. & Dist. Ujjain. In the year 2003, the said land was acquired
for the purpose of urban development scheme vide award dated 19.09.2003
passed by respondent no.3 and in lieu of that, compensation was ordered to be
given to the appellant. Vide letter dated 13.10.2009 issued by respondent no.5,
appellant was informed that out of the total land admeasuring 0.470 hectares,
land admeasuring 0.123 hectares is available on the spot, hence, compensation
for land admeauring 0.470 hectares could not be given and the acquisition
award would have to be amended. Thereafter, 0.123 hectare land was acquired
by letter dated 26.03.2012 and mutation proceedings took place in the revenue
records. However, in the said mutation proceedings, respondent no.6 has
mutated land admeasuring 0.470 hectares instead of 0.123 hectares. Being
aggrieved by the non payment of compensation amount as per the mutation of
0.470 hectares land, appellant submitted various application in 'jan sunwai'
before respondent no.4, but the same were not adverted to. Appellant submitted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/5/2023
6:12:57 PM
application before the respondent no.2 who has directed respondent no.4 and 5
to revise the acquisition award and reduce the acquisition of land from 0.470
hectares to 0.123 hectares and grant compensation as per the provisions of law
on the date of passing the said order as per market value.Even after passing of
the said order, no action has been taken and no amount of compensation has
been paid and mutation is done in the name of M.P. housing and Infrastructure
Development Board of total land admeasuring 0.470 hectares in the year 2016.
Appellant against the said inaction of respondents has preferred writ petition in
which learned Single Judge has dismissed the application for interim relief and
listed the same for final hearing. On the date of hearing i.e. 07.07.2023, learned
Single Judge in the absence of counsel for the appellant has admitted the
petition for final hearing by rejecting the application for urgent hearing.
Hence,now the present intra Court appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order dated
07.07.2023 passed by learned Single Judge is arbitrary and illegal . Learned
Single Judge has failed to consider the earlier order passed on14.03.2023
wherein it has been observed that prayer of interim relief shall be considered at
the time of final arguments. Learned Single Judge has not taken into
consideration that excessive land of appellant was mutated for which no
compensation has been paid and instead exparte order has been passed
admitting the petition. Hence, the present appeal may be allowed and right of the
appellant be secured by directing for expeditious hearing of the writ petition.
4. Learned Sr. counsel for the respondent at the threshold contended
that writ appeal itself is not maintainable as proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act
does not create an absolute bar to prefer an appeal before the Division Bench,
but an appeal can be preferred against the order regard being had to the nature,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/5/2023
6:12:57 PM
tenor, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.
5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Section 2(1) of M.P. of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand
Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is reproduced below for convenience
and ready reference:
"Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a
Judgement or order of one Judge of the High Court made in
exercise of original jurisdiction. - (1) An appeal shall lie from a
Judgement or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in
exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two
judges of the same High Court.
Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an
interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India."
7. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that same is neither in the
nature of a final order nor affects the rights of the parties.
8. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Jain &
Others Vs State of M.P. and Others reported in 2007(3) M.P.L.J. 565, has
held that an appeal from a judgment or order is maintainable only when an
interlocutory order has the semblance of final order or affect the rights of the
parties, it can be treated as an order for all the purposes. The proviso stipulates
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/5/2023
6:12:57 PM
that no appeal would lie against an interlocutory order.
9. In view of the aforesaid and in the light of the full Bench judgment in
the case of Arvind Kumar Jain & others (supra), instant appeal is not
maintainable as the same has been filed against an interlocutory order which
does not affect the rights of parties in any manner, whatsoever.
10. Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed being not maintainable.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 10/5/2023
6:12:57 PM
