Madhya Pradesh High Court
Municipal Council Kasrawad Through Its ... vs Kamlesh on 23 February, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CIVIL REVISION No. 730 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KASRAWAD THROUGH ITS
CHIEF MUNICIPAL KASRAWAD DISTRICT
KHARGONE. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI MANURAJ SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
KAMLESH S/O SHANKARLALA PATIDAR, AGED
ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
1.
KASRAWAD DISTRICT KHARGONE. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
PRESIDENT MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KASRAWAD
2.
KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMPETENT AUTHORITY M.P. LOK PARISAR
BEDAKHLI ADHINIAM SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER
3.
REVENUE KASRAWAD DISTRICT KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR
4.
KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI BHUWAN GAUTAM - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.4/STATE)
(SHRI ADITYA RAJ SINGH SOLANKI - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 05/03/2024
6:48:53 PM
-2-
the following:
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure by the applicant being aggrieved with the order dated
13.10.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kasrawad
(West Nimad), District - Khargone in RCS A No.42/2022 in which
application filed by the applicant - Municipal Council Kasrawad under
Order 7 Rule 11 r/w of the CPC was dismissed.
02. Brief facts before the trial Court were that there is a residential
house in ward no.6 Kasrawad, District - Khargone which was of the
ownership and possession of one Late Rama @ Ramu S/o Naan Singh
Bhilala. Deceased Rama @ Ramu is executed a will in favour of
plaintiff/non-applicant no.1 on 27.06.2018 by which the plaintiff/non-
applicant claimed to be the owner of that house and as per the
defendant/applicant - Municipal Council Kasrawad, the Competent
Authority under Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam,
1974 (in short Act of 1974) served the notice of eviction. On 14.07.2022,
the plaintiff/non-applicant appeared before the authority and replied
alongwith the Will executed by Rama @ Ramu. After hearing, the
Competent Authority vide order dated 22.08.2022 passed the eviction
order. The plaintiff/non-applicant after serving the notice under Section 80
of the CPC filed the civil suit before the trial Court.
03. On notice, the defendant/applicant - Municipal Council, Sub-
Divisional Officer and State of M.P. Through Collector, District Khargone
filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC to reject the
plaint on the ground that the disputed house was allotted to deceased Rama
@ Ramu S/o Naan Singh Bhilala under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna as he
was a poor and destitute tribal person for residential purpose that was of
the ownership and possession of the State. The house was constructed on
the Government land and the Competent Authority - Madhya Pradesh Lok
Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 after due proceedings on 18.08.2022
passed an order of eviction and the plaintiff has challenged that order.
04. The order issued by the Competent Authority under Section 9 is
appealable order and as per the Section 10 of the Act, 1974 the order
passed by the Competent Authority or Appellate Authority under this Act
is final and that cannot be called in question in any original suit,
application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by
any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in
pursuance of any order passed under this Act and as per the Section 15 of
the Act, 1974 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred, hence, the suit is
not maintainable and plaint be rejected.
05. The application was replied by the plaintiff/non-applicant no.1 and
in that he has emphasized that the house was built by deceased Rama @
Ramu and he was unmarried and issueless. The plaintiff was taking care of
him and being pleased with his service the deceased Rama @ Ramu has
executed a Will in his favour. After the death of Rama @ Ramu,
plaintiff/non-applicant no.1 Kamlesh got all the rights and title which was
possessed by deceased Rama @ Ramu. He has filed the suit for
declaration of title and injunction and the proviso of Madhya Pradesh Lok
Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 are not applicable in this case.
Heard the parties & perused the record.
06. As per the plaint averment, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have filed the
Application No.1701/2022 on 14.07.2022 before the respondent no.3 with
pleadings that the house which was constructed under Pradhan Mantri
Awas Yojna be handed over to Municipal Council and the Notice
No.1478/va-1/2022 dated 12.08.2022 was issued and the plaintiff
appeared before the Court. The date was fixed for 16.08.2022. The plaintiff
sought time to file the reply and the case was fixed on 18.08.2022 and on
18.08.2022 the plaintiff filed the reply alongwith the Will executed by
deceased Rama @ Ramu and after 18.08.2022 without hearing the plaintiff
on 22.08.2022 the order was passed by the Competent Authority. Thus, it
is clear that the plaintiff has basically challenged the order of the
Competent Authority. Alongwith the petition he has submitted the
documents and as per that documents the Competent Authority/SDO
(Revenue) Kasrawad through Notice No.1478/va-1/2022 - 147 dated
05.08.2022 has issued notice to the plaintiff to show cause and as per the
Revenue Case No./0082/B-121/2022-23 (Annexure-A/4), the order was
passed and eviction notice was sent to the plaintiff.
07. The learned trial Court by the impugned order has dismissed the
application on the ground that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear civil
suits of all nature except where the jurisdiction of Civil Court is specially
or impliedly barred. The trial Court has also mentioned that as per the
Section 10 and 15 of the Act, 1974 the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred
but relied on the judgment of Dhulabai vs. State of M.P. held that the Civil
Court is bound to look that the provisions of the concerned Act have been
duly followed or not, whether the principles of natural justice has been
followed or not and whether the concerned authority has power to
adjudicate the relief claimed by the plaintiff and also held that on the same
day the reply of the plaintiff was taken on record, evidence was completed
and the order was passed, hence, the Competent Authority has violated the
principles of natural justice and on that basis dismissed the application
filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.
08. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has
submitted that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred and the trial
Court has wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Act. The Civil Court
has no jurisdiction and to support his argument he has relied on the
judgment of Karan Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2009)
MPHT 155.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
09. As per the plaint averment it is clear that in the proceeding before
the Civil Court, the plaintiff has challenged the order passed by the
Competent Authority under Madhya Pradesh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali)
Adhiniyam, 1974 and has claimed his right on the ground that the disputed
premises was of deceased Rama @ Ramu.
10. From the documents attached with the petition it is clear that the
SDO, Kasrawad vide order dated 31.05.2003 has allotted the house via
Revenue Case No.25/2-3 to Rama @ Ramu S/o Naan Singh in ward no.6
of town Kasrawad and as per the notice (Exhibit-A/3, A/4 and A/5) it is
clear that the notice was served on plaintiff/non-applicant. He appeared
before the authority and replied and after hearing the plaintiff/non-
applicant, the Competent Authority has passed the order dated 18.08.2022
and issued a eviction notice and on that basis the suit was filed on
26.08.2022.
11. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff/non-applicant has basically
challenged the order of the Competent Authority. In this regard, Section 9
of the Act, 1974 is reproduced below :-
9. Appeals - - (1) The state Government
may, by notification appoint such person
being an officer not below the rank of the
Collector as appellate authority for the
purposes of this Act in respect of such areas
as may be specified in the notification.
(2) An appeal shall lie from every order
of the competent authority made in respect of
any public premises under S. 5 or S. 7 to the
appellate authority appointed under sub-
section (1).
(3) An appeal under sub-section (1)
shall lie -
(a) in case of an appeal from an
order under section 5, within fifteen
days from the date of publication of
the order under sub-section (1) of
that section; and
(b) in case of an appeal from an
order under section7, within fifteen
days from the date on which the
order is communicated to the
appellant :
Provided that the appellate authority
may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the
said period of fifteen days, if such authority is
satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(4) Where an appeal is preferred from
an order of competent authority, the appellate
authority may stay the enforcement of that
order for a total period not exceeding sixty
days and on such conditions as it may deem
fit.
(5) Every appeal under this section
shall be disposed of by the appellate authority
as expeditiously as possible.
(6) The costs of any appeal under this
section shall be in the discretion of appellate
authority.
12. Thus, there is a provision of appeal if any person is aggrieved
with the order passed by the Competent Authority can file an appeal.
13. The order of the Competent Authority or Appellate Authority
under the Act as per section 10 of the Act, 1974 shall be final and shall not
be called in question in any original suit, application or execution
proceeding and no injunction can be issued against the order. Thus, from
the scheme of the Act there is a provision for redressal of the dispute
among the parties and the jurisdiction of Civil Court has been barred by
Section 15 of the Act, 1974 i.e. as under :-
15. Bar of jurisdiction - No court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in
respect of the eviction of any person who is in
unauthorised occupation of any public premises or
the recovery of the arrears of rent payable under
sub-section (1) of section 7, or the damages
payable under sub-section (2) of that section or the
costs awarded to the State Government or the
corporate authority under sub-section (5) of the
section 9 or any portion of such rent, damages or
costs.
14. From the above, it is clear that Civil Court has no jurisdiction.
This Court in the case of Karan Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
(2009) MPHT 155 has clearly held that the SDO is Competent Authority
and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
15. Hence, from the above discussion it is clear that the Civil Court is
not an Appellate Authority and is not Competent Authority to interfere in
the order by the Authority on the basis of violation of natural justice and
the provisions of law.
16. Hence, the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 passed by learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kasrawad is quashed. The revision is
allowed and the plaint RCS A-42/2022 filed before the Civil Judge (Senior
Division) Kasrawad (West Nimad) District - Khargone is rejected as being
barred by the law.
17. In view of the above, this revision petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for information
and necessary compliance.
(DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE
vs
