Rameshchandra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15092 MP

                                                       1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
                                          ON THE 13 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                           MISC. PETITION No. 1453 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    RAMESHCHANDRA S/O SHRI ANOPSINGH, AGED
                                 ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                 VILL-BAADIGAON, TEH. GULANA DISTRICT
                                 SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    GOPILAL S/O SHRI ANOPSINGH, AGED ABOUT 65
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                 BAADIGAON TEH. GULANA DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    JAGANNATH S/O SHRI BULAJI, AGED ABOUT 70
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                 BAADIGAON TEH. GULANA DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    KAILASH S/O SHRI AMRAJI, AGED ABOUT 45
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                 BAADIGAON TEH. GULANA DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    NARSINGH S/O SHRI AMRAJI, AGED ABOUT 40
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                 BAADIGAON TEH. GULANA DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           6.    BALDEVSINGH S/O SHRI BHERUSINGH, AGED
                                 ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                 VILLAGE BAADIGAON TEH. GULANA DISTRICT
                                 SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           7.    HOKAMSINGH S/O RATANSINGH, AGED ABOUT 45
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                 BAADIGAON TEH. GULANA DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI AMIT RAJ, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 15-09-2023
17:10:05
                                                                 2
                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
                                 COLLECTOR DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    SUB    DIVISIONAL   MAGISTRATE DISTRICT
                                 SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    TEHSILDAR TEH.GULANA DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    KUMERSINGH S/O SIDDHULAL R/O VILLAGE
                                 BAADIGAON TEH. GULANA DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( SHRI MAYANK MISHRA, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
                           RESPONDENT/STATE)
                           (SHRI MANISH KUMAR VIJAYWARGIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           RESPONDENT NO.4)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                 ORDER

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Additional Collector, Shajapur in Case No.60/Revision/2019-2020 (Annexure P-

1) by which Additional Collector set aside the order passed by the Sub Division Officer (Revenue) dated 10.02.2020 passed in Case No.77/Appeal/2019-2020.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners resided at Village Baadigaon, Tehsil- Gulana, Dist- Shajapur (M.P.) and respondents no.1 to 3 are State and respondent no.4 is the contesting party before the Courts below. The petitioners no. 1 to 6 have preferred the application under Sections 131, 132 of the Land Revenue Code 1959 against the respondent no. 4 and prayed that the conventional route (old route) used by petitioners to reach their agricultural land along with agricultural equipment be opened as the respondent no. 4 after Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 15-09-2023 17:10:05

purchasing the land closed the conventional route of the petitioners. The petitioners have alleged in the application that they are owners of the agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.1171/2 rakba 0.54, 1391/1 rakba 0.73, 1187 rakba 1.12, 1390/1 rakba 1.05 786 rakba 0.020 856 rakba 0.020, 1172 rakba 0.73, 1337 rakba 0.15, 1397 rakba 0.72, 1186 rakba 0.73, 1338 rakba 0.15, 1396 rakba 0.72, 1171/1 rakba 0.54, 1391/2 rakba 0.72, 1401 rakba 0.20, 1402 rakba 0.70 and 1405 rakba 1.43. They further submitted that route of petitioners starts from center boundary of Village Baadigaon and Bhensrode through survey no. 1167 and 1190. It also includes land survey nos.1189, 1194, 1207, 1391 and 1392. They further alleged that the alleged route was opened and used since their birth and much before, but the respondent no. 4 has recently purchased the agriculture land bearing survey no.1207 and has closed the route used by petitioners since years. Though the route was opened before and after the survey no.1207, but in the midway the respondent has deprived the petitioner to use, crop and cultivate the field, hence they preferred the application. The copy of application is Annexure P/2.

3. The respondent appeared before the respondent no.3/Tehsildar, Tehsil Gulana, District Shajapur and filed the reply of the application and denied all the averménts of the petitioners made in application and alleged that there was no conventional route, but there is alternative route. He also alleged that he

is cultivating the crop and denied to open the conventional route for the petitioners. The copy of reply is Annexure P/3. He further submitted that Tehsildar recorded the evidence of both the parties and considering the application, reply. statement and documents produced by both the sides and also perusing the report from the concern revenue inspector, the respondent

Signature Not Verified no.3 please to allowed the application filed by the petitioners and ordered the Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 15-09-2023 17:10:05

respondent no.4 to open the alleged route without any hurdle i.e (Annexure P-

5). Being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.3 the respondent no.4 has preferred the appeal before the respondent no.2/SDO (Revenue) Shajapur.

4. After hearing both the parties and considering all the facts, documents, the respondent no.2 dismissed the appeal vide Annexure P-6. Being aggrieved by the order in appeal respondent no.4 again preferred a revision before the respondent no.1/Collector, Shajapur who appreciated the order passed by respondents no.2 and 3 and clearly accepted the fact that there was conventional route for petitioners which they were using for cultivation of crops and transportation of agricultural equipment since long time but without assigning any fruitful reason passed the impugned order Annexure P-1 holding that the petitioners can use the route through walking or on two wheeler, but they cannot carry their tractor, harvester or any other agricultural equipment. Being aggrieved by the order Annexure P-1, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the Additional Collector is arbitrary and against the provisions of natural justice. Respondent no.3 has rightly passed the order after recording the statement of both the parties, report from the Revenue Inspector, documents and spot verification, but respondent no.1 without any cogent reason passed the impugned order that the petitioners can pass through the route by walking or with two wheeler which is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 opposed the petition and prays for dismissal of this petition by filing reply and submitting that he filed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 15-09-2023 17:10:05

civil suit before the III Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shajapur for declaration that there is no conventional route from his survey number and also seeking to declare null and void the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the Additional Collector for permanent injunction hence, this petition is not maintainable.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the appellate Court is not empowered to interfere with the lower Court unless discretion has been exercised arbitrarily. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Wander Ltd. and others Vs. Antox India P.Ltd. reported in 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-

"9. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge.

In such appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 15-09-2023 17:10:05

different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion."

9. He also relied on the judgment in the case of Harikishan and others Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2007 (2) MPLJ 84 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that under Section 50 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, the revisional Court can exercise jurisdiction regarding the legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any revenue officer subordinate to it. We found that the concurrent findings recorded by the Collector and Additional Commissioner are based on appreciation of evidence and there is no illegality therein. There was also no irregularity in the proceedings, therefore, there was no propriety to interfere in the orders passed by both the Courts below.

10. On perusal of the record it is undisputed that a civil suit has been filed by the respondent no.4 before the competent civil jurisdiction for declaring null and void the order passed by the Additional Collector, Annexure P-1 and

also seeking declaration that there is no conventional route from his agricultural land and also seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners. When a civil suit is filed, Civil Court has ample jurisdiction to decide whether conventional route exists or not and respondent also filed a civil suit seeking to declare null and void Annexure P-1 and it is also clear that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. When a civil suit exists between the parties, the Civil Court must decide the nature of the right after taking evidence of the parties.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, this petition is not tenable. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 15-09-2023 17:10:05

(HIRDESH) JUDGE RJ

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 15-09-2023 17:10:05