Madhya Pradesh High Court
S K Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 15th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3903 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
S K PANDEY S/O LATE SHRI P K PANDEY, AGED
ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O
1187 PACHPEDI SOUTH CIVIL LINES JABALPUR
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHAILENDRA SINGH - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. S.D.M. RANJHI DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER M.P. P.W.D. JABALPUR
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORK
DEPARTMENT PACHPEDI, SOUTH CIVIL
LINES, JABALPUR DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed seeking the following reliefs :-
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by directing
the respondents authorities to restrain the
construction of road over the property of the
petitioner, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the
respondent no. 2 & 4 to decide the representation of
the petitioner contained in Annexure-P/6, in the
interest of justice.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper may also be given to the petitioner along
with the cost of petition, in the interest of justice.
2. Although there are certain objections which have been pointed out by
the office but looking to the urgent nature of the petition, those
objections are hereby ignored.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the land
bearing khasra no.39/24, 40/24 and 41/20 area measuring 0.101 hectare
as he had purchased the same by registered sale deed dated 8.5.2012
executed by one Smt. Kamla Dey. The petitioner was also in
possession of the aforesaid land. The name of the petitioner was also
mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, one Ganesh Singh Thakur
and others filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction
against the petitioner before Civil Judge Class-II, Jabalpur, District
Jabalpur which was registered as Civil Suit No.96-A/2013. The said
civil suit has been decreed by the Trial Court and the sale deed
executed in favour of the petitioner has been declared as void ab initio.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed a civil appeal before the
District Court, Jabalpur (wrongly described as Session Court, Jabalpur
in para no. 5.6 of the writ petition) which has been registered as RCA
No.161/2023 and is pending for adjudication.
5. It is submitted that PWD has started developing a road in the society
and the road is passing through the property of the present petitioner. It
is submitted that although the petitioner had approached the authorities
thereby making an oral prayer not to construct road over the land
belonging to him but the same has been turned down by the authorities
by saying that sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner has
already been held to be null and void. It is further submitted that the
petitioner had also raised an objection which has not been answered
and the respondents are moving ahead by constructing road.
6. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the
State. It is submitted by Shri Sausarkar that by virtue of judgment and
decree dated 21.4.2023 passed by the Civil Judge Class -II, Jabalpur,
District Jabalpur in RCS No.96-A/13, it is clear that at present the
petitioner is not owner of the property in dispute. Merely because the
appeal is pending would not operate as stay and even otherwise, in case
if the petitioner ultimately succeeds in the civil litigation, then he can
always claim compensation either in the light of the provisions of
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or by a private negotiation,
therefore, the rights of the petitioner are also protected.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that although his sale deed has already
been declared null and void but his appeal is pending against the said
judgment and decree.
9. It is well established principle of law that filing of an appeal would not
operate as stay (as provided under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC). For the
time being, the petitioner cannot be treated as an owner of the land in
dispute. Ultimately if he succeeds in the civil litigation, then he can
always ask for compensation as per the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 or by private negotiations or sale deed. For
the time being, since the petitioner is not owner of the property in
dispute, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner by
restraining the respondents from constructing road over the property in
dispute.
10. Accordingly, with liberty to the petitioner to pray for compensation, in
case, if he ultimately succeeds in the civil litigation, the petition is
dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
JP
JITENDRA KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf019e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64a5a,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
PAROUHA serialNumber=627378D3EE51220F5E81130EECF5ABBEC55EBB6B78033E5FF10402B1914
3AD99, cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
Date: 2024.02.16 04:57:51 -08'00'
