Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ratnesh Agnihotri vs Shri Mania Kol 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 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 7578 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RATNESH AGNIHOTRI S/O SHRI RAJIVELOCHAN
AGNIHOTRI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
VILLAGE BAMHORI, TEHSIL KOTAR, DISTRICT SATNA,
HALL MUKAM R/O UAMARI SATNA RAGHURAJNAGAR,
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) PETITIONER IS
LRS OF LATE SHRI SHAYAM PRAKASH @
BRAHMCHARI AGNIHOTRI S/O LATE RAMKISHORE
AGNIHOTRI (DIED)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SOURABH KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI MANIA KOL S/O SHRI KATAHURA KOL,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O MOJA GHORKATI,
TEHSIL KOTAR, POLICE STATION KOTAR,
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI RAMPRATAP HARIJAN S/O JADUHA
HARIJAN OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
MOJA GHORKATI, TEHSIL KOTAR, POLICE
STATION KOTAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. PAPU KOL S/O DADADA KOL AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O MOJA
GHORKATI, TEHSIL KOTAR, POLICE STATION
KOTAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MAIYADEEN @ KARGOHIYA AGED ABOUT 59
YEAR S R / O MOJA GHORKATI, TEHSIL KOTAR,
POLICE STATION KOTAR, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BABU LAL HARIJAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NOT MENTION R / O MOJA
GHORKATI, TEHSIL KOTAR, POLICE STATION
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-Feb-24
5:30:05 PM
2
KOTAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT, ADHARWAR,
THROUGH ITS SARPANCH SHRI GANPAT KOL
AGED 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST
R /O MOJA GHORKATI, TEHSIL KOTAR, POLICE
STATION KOTAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. SHRI TRIYUGI NARAYAN S/O DADOLI KACHCHI,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BAMHORI
TEHSIL KOTAR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR,
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed
against order dated 11/12/2023 passed by Second Civil Judge Senior Division,
District Satna in RCSA No.28/2012, by which application filed by petitioner for
summoning the Commissioner report along with original map/ trace map has
been rejected.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of present petition in short are that petitioner
had filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction as well as for
removal of encroachment. The Trial Court by judgment and decree dated
07/04/2017 dismissed the suit. Petitioner preferred Regular Civil Appeal and by
order dated 15/03/2023 Appellate Court has remanded the matter back to the
Trial Court by framing three additional issues. Petitioner filed his objection to
the report submitted by Commissioner, however prayer made by petitioner for
grant of opportunity has been rejected by the impugned order. Accordingly,
present petition has been filed.
3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that the witnesses have admitted
that demarcation was done without any map which is contrary to the issues
framed by Appellate Court and under these circumstances, Trial Court should
have allowed the application and should have called a fresh demarcation report.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The Appellate Court after framing three issues, set aside the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter back. Those three
issues were as under:-
(i) The Trial Court should get the demarcation of araji
No.253 situated in village Bamhori by a revenue officer on the
basis of sanctioned revenue map and the said map should be
annexed along with Commissioner report.
(ii) Commissioner shall also verify as to whether the
defendants have encroached upon a part of araji No.253 area
0.65 acres or not and whether they have raised any
construction or not?
(iii) Commissioner was also directed to clarify as to whether
construction of defendants is situated on Baadi and road of
araji No.73 Mouja Ghorkati, Tehsil Rampur or not?
6. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that it is clear from the evidence of
Commissioner that demarcation was carried out without any sanctioned map
and thus the direction given by Appellate Court was not complied with and
accordingly, Trial Court should have directed the Commissioner to submit a
fresh demarcation report.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Petitioner has filed a copy of deposition sheet of Sujeet Nagesh posted as
Tahsildar. This witness has specifically stated that although petitioner was not
present on the spot at the time of demarcation but his father was present.
9. By referring to paragraph 12 of his cross-examination, it is submitted that
Commissioner had admitted that at the time of demarcation he was not having
trace map. However, Commissioner has also stated that he had gone to the spot
along with original sanctioned map and photocopy of the same has been filed
along with report. On demand made by the Court, trace map has also been
produced before the Court.
10. Thus, it is clear that Commissioner has specifically stated that demarcation
was done on the basis of original sanctioned map. The demarcation was done
in the presence of Rajivlochan, who is father of the petitioner. It is the case of
Commissioner that Rajivlochan had refused to sign the demarcation report
although Rajivlochan had signed the notice for demarcation.
11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no
jurisdictional error was committed by the Trial Court by rejecting the
application.
12. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.
13. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
S.M.
