Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Shankuntala Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 W.P.No.3301/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALP UR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 5th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3301 of 2006
SMT. SHANKUNTALA DEVI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Gulatee - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vijyendra Singh Choudhary - Government Advocate for
respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following relief(s):-
"(i) That, the respondents may kindly be
commanded to produce the entire record
leading to acquisition of land bearing Khasra
No.79, admeasuring 3.25 acres situated in the
township of Sehore, for perusal of this Hon'ble
Court.
(ii) That, the respondents may kindly be
commanded to make payment of compensation
to the petitioner in respect of land bearing
Khasra No. 79 admeasuring 3.25 acres
situated in the township of Sehore or in the
alternative to allot any other suitable land to
the petitioner.
(iii) That, order dated 10.2.2003
(Annexure P-8) passed in Case No.
24/B121/2000-01 may kindly be quashed.
(iv) That, any other relief, deemed fit,
may also kindly be granted."
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that earlier Khasra No.79
admeasuring 3.25 acres of land situated in the township of Sehore was
recorded in the name of the mother of the petitioner. After the death of his
mother, petitioner became the sole owner of the land. The aforesaid land
has already been utilized by the respondents for setting up of a Telephone
Exchange Building as well as for setting up a Harijan Colony. However, it
is the case of the petitioner that although the land of the petitioner has been
acquired but no compensation has been paid to the petitioner.
3. It is submitted that admittedly the name of the State Government
was recorded in the revenue records by order dated 08.09.1976, which was
never challenged by the petitioner. Later on, when the petitioner realized
that his mother was the real owner of the property in dispute, therefore he
approached the Collector for payment of compensation amount and by
impugned order dated 10.02.2003 passed by Collector, Sehore, District
Sehore in Case No. 24/B-121/2000-2001, his prayer for grant of
compensation was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit
No.18-A/2003, which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated
02.05.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Sehore by holding that the
petitioner has failed to prove that the order dated 10.02.2003 passed by the
Collector, Sehore is illegal and further held that the suit filed by the
petitioner is barred by time. However, also held that the order dated
08.09.1976 passed by Tahsildar (Nazul), Sehore in Case No.9-A/6/1975-
76 by which the name of the State Government was recorded is also
binding on the petitioner. It was also held that the land was allotted to the
Indian Telecom Department after issuing a public notice inviting the
objections but no objections were filed. Furthermore, the petitioner had
also preferred an appeal before the Collector against the order dated
08.09.1976 passed in Case No.9/A-6/1975-76, which too was dismissed by
the Collector, Sehore by order dated 10.02.2003 passed in 24/B-121/2000-
2001.
4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by
judgment and decree dated 01.12.2005 passed by Additional Judge to the
Court of First Additional District Judge, Sehore in Regular Civil Appeal
No. 8-A/2005. It is undisputed fact that the judgment and decree passed by
the Appellate Court has attained finality and was never challenged by the
petitioner and without assailing the judgment and decree passed by the
Courts below, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
5. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since the land of the
petitioner has been acquired without payment of compensation, therefore,
such act of the respondent is violative of Article 300-A of Constitution of
India resulting in violation of his Constitutional as well as Human Rights
and thus, this Court can ignore the judgment and decree passed by the
Courts below.
6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
7. The name of the State Government was mutated in the revenue
record in the year, 1976. The said order was also assailed by the petitioner
by filing an appeal before the Collector which too was dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit as well as Regular Civil Appeal
but he lost from both the Courts below. In the year, 1977, the land in
dispute was allotted to the Indian Telecom Department and before such
allotment a public notice was issued inviting objections but no objection
was raised by the petitioner. It is not a case of acquisition of a property of
petitioner without payment of compensation but it is a case where the
name of the State Government was mutated in the revenue records way
back in the year, 1976.
8. It is also the case of the petitioner that he is not in possession of the
property in dispute and the same is in possession of the Indian Telecom
Department and a Harijan Colony has also been constructed over it.
9. This Court has also gone through the copy of the pleadings raised
by the petitioner in the plaint and could not point out any pleading with
regard to his dispossession. Although, the plea of adverse possession is not
available to the State but once the name of the State Government was
mutated in the revenue records in the year, 1976 which was never
challenged by the petitioner till 2000 and even the Civil Suit and the
Regular Civil Appeal have also been dismissed, this Court is of considered
opinion that the basic cause of action for filing the present petition is the
mutation of name of State Government in the year, 1976.
10. Although, the petitioner has tried to give it a colour of violation of
constitutional right as well as human right but having failed to challenge
the mutation of name of State Government in the revenue records and after
having allowed the Indian Telecom Department to establish the Telephone
Exchange as well as having allowed to establish a Harijan Colony and that
too way back in late 70's, this Court is of considered opinion that no case
is made out warranting interference.
11. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
VB*
VARSHA CHOURASIYA
2024.08.08 14:46:57 +05'30'
