Baliram vs Collector
2024 Latest Caselaw 12495 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Baliram vs Collector on 3 May, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                                                            1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                                      &
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
                                                  ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
                                               WRIT APPEAL No. 981 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BALIRAM S/O KASHIRAM KALOTA, AGED ABOUT 70
                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: PENSIONER GRAM GUNAWAD,
                           TEHSIL BADNAGAR, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....APPELLANT
                           ( (DR.) MANOHAR LAL DALAL - ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT)


                           AND
                           1.    COLLECTOR UJJAIN DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    ANUVIBHAGIYA ADHIKARI (RAJSV) BADNAGAR,
                                 JILA UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    PIDU S/O HATTA OCCUPATION: KRISHI GRAM
                                 GUNAWAD, TEHSIL BADNAGAR, DISTRICT
                                 UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (NONE PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENTS)

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
                           Dharmadhikari passed the following:
                                                             ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

The present intra Court appeal u/S 2(1) of M.P. Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the order dated

13.02.2024 passed in W.P. No. 19215/2023 whereby the writ petition has been disposed off.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present intra Court appeal are that appellant had filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Badnagar, Distt. Ujjain in Case No. 0213/A-6/A/2022-23 on the ground that the respondent authorities are not taking any action for release/restriction of Government land which was reserved for cremation purposes. The learned Single Judge after verifying the complaint and the documents found that the respondent no. 2 has passed the order dated 13.06.2023 and issued direction for reserving of 0.951 hectares of land situated

on Survey No. 621 Village Gunawad, Teh & Distt Ujjain for cremation purpose. The Collector, Distt. Ujjain has also issued direction to record the land in the revenue records for cremation purpose, therefore, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there is no need to interfere with the order and in case the appellant is having any grievance, he may resort to remedy available under the law and disposed off the petition. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in fact in compliance of the judgment rendered in W.P. No. 7865/2021 and 8517/2021 dated 09.06.2021 wherein the Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jabalpur has taken serious note to the increasing cases of encroachment on public land and had directed the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent body designated as Public Land Protection Cell(PLPC) with District Collector as its Chairman , who is supposed to personally or through sub-ordinate officers enquire into the matters of encroachment and get the public land removed from encroachment. Hence, learned Single Judge ought to have referred the matter

before the Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) directing to decide the representation and allot the land for cremation purpose which has not been done. Hence, the present appeal may be allowed and the order passed by the SDO, Badnagar may be set aside and the matter may be referred to the PLPC for deciding the representation.

4. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

5. On a query made by this Court, as to how the writ petition was maintainable in private capacity, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that cremation purpose is common need of all the residents of locality and, therefore, the writ petition was very much maintainable.

6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the writ petition has not been filed in the shape of Public Interest Litigation, but as an individual case. However, the appellant has no personal grievance and therefore there was no legal right accrued in favour of the appellant to raise such ground. Moreso, the learned Single Judge instead of entertaining the writ petition ought to have dismissed the same on the ground of maintainability itself. However, the learned Single Judge has not disturbed the order passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. SDO, Badnagar, Distt. Ujjain and has also relegated the appellant to take resort to the remedy available to him under the law. Hence, the contentions raised by the counsel for appellant cannot be countenanced since the appellant had no

legal right to file such petition.

7. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court.

8. Consequently, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.

                                (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)       (GAJENDRA SINGH)
                                         JUDGE                   JUDGE
                           sh