Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 21925 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MANGILAL S/O GANGARAM GAAYRI, AGED ABOUT
36 YEARS, GRAM AAKYABEKA TEH.
1.
MALHARGARH DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
PARMANAND S/O GANGARAM GAYRI, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, GRAM AKYABEEKA TEH.
2.
MALHARGARH DIST. MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
GANGARAM S/O KISHANLAL GAYRI, AGED ABOUT
3. 69 YEARS, GRAM AKYABEEKA TEH. MALHARGARH
DIST. MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI PANDE KASHI PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH UPPER AAYUKT
1.
UJJAIN SANBHAG UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
ANUVIBHAGIYA ADHIKARI MAHO. (RAJASV)
2. UPKHAND MALHARGARH DIST. MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
NAYAB TEHSILDAR SAHAB TAPPA SANJEET,
3. TEHSIL MALHARGARH DIST. MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
BHUVANIBAI W/O RADHESHYAM GAYRI, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
4.
GRAM AKYABEEKA TEH. MALHARGARH DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
PRABHULAL S/O RAMLAL GAYRI, AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
5.
AKYABEEKA TEH. MALHARGARH DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. BALMUKUND S/O RAMDAYAL GAYRI, AGED ABOUT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 15-09-2023
17:49:06
-2-
29 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
AKYABEEKA TEH. MALHARGARH DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAMDAYAL S/O KISHAN GAYRI, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
7.
AKYABEEKA TEH. MALHARGARH DIST.
MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHANTNU CHOURASIA , GOVT. ADVOCATE)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated
26.06.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Ujjain whereby appeal
has been dismissed and orders of SDO dated 27.01.2021 and Tehsildar
dated 15.10.2020 have been maintained.
Facts of the case in short are as under:-
01. The respondent no.4/Bhuwani Bai filed an application under
Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Naib
Tehsildar against the petitioners and respondent no.5 to 7 that she is the
owner of land bearing survey no.89 Area 1.77 Hectare. The non-applicants
filed a Civil Suit No.16A/2005 before Second ADJ Mandsaur which was
dismissed on 01.09.2005. The said judgment has attained finality as no
appeal was filed. The learned ADJ held that the she is the owner of land
bearing survey no.89. On 07.06.2019 the non-applicants have encroached
0.75 Hectare land by erecting the poles and wires, therefore. On that the
report was lodged. Hence, she sought the restoration of possession.
02. The aforesaid application was opposed by the petitioners and
respondent no.5 to 7 on the ground that the First Appeal No.493/2007 is
pending before the High Court and they are in possession and Bhuwani
Bai/respondent no.4 was never in possession. Vide order dated
15.10.2020, Tehsildar allowed the application directing these petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 15-09-2023
17:49:06
and respondents no. 5 to7 to handover the possession of the land to
Bhuwani Bai. Thereafter, they preferred an appeal before SDO which was
dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2021. After that, they approached the
Additional Commissioner and the appeal has been dismissed vide
impugned order 26.06.2023.
03. The petitioner submits that the first appeal is pending before this
Court, therefore, the Revenue Authorities ought to have been restrained
themselves to pass any order in application filed under Section 250 of the
MPLRC.
Heard.
04. The application filed under Section 250 of the MPLRC was
opposed only on the ground that the first appeal is pending but admittedly
there is no such stay in favour of the petitioners and respondents no. 5 to 7.
Earlier, the suit was dismissed. The respondent no.4/Bhuwani Bai has been
found the owner of the suit land. Thereafter, only Gangaram and
Ramdayal filed a first appeal. The petitioners no.1 Mangilal and no.2
Parmanand have not filed the first appeal before the High Court.
Admittedly, there is no stay in favour of the petitioners as well as
respondents no. 5 to 7, therefore, the Revenue Authorities have rightly
initiated the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC. The petitioners
and respondent no.5 to 7 have no right to take possession and they are
liable to handover the said land to respondent no.4/Bhuwani Bai. Hence,
there is no case to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the
Revenue Authorities.
In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
vs
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 15-09-2023
17:49:06
