Suresh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12960 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Suresh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2024

                               1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                           BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV
                   ON THE 8th OF MAY, 2024
         MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.42 OF 2022

BETWEEN:-

1.    SURESH S/O SHRI HARIMOHAN KANJAR,
2.    RAMSWAROOP S/O PRABHOO KANJAR,
AGE-55 YEARS
3.    KOK SINGH S/O SHRI HARDAYAL, AGE-50
YRS.
4.    VICHITRA SINGH S/O SHRI NEEM SINGH
KANJAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS :-
(A)SMT. JAGRANI W/O LATE SHRI VICHITRA
SINGH, AGE - 50 YRS.
(B) RAMANAND S/O LATE SHRI VICHITRA
SINGH, AGE-25 YRS.
(C) SONI D/O LATE SHRI VICHITRA SINGH,
AGE-23 YEARS,
(D) SANJEEV S/O LATE SHRI VICHITRA SINGH,
AGE - 22 YRS.
5.    VIRMOD S/O PANCHAM SINGH KANJAR,
AGE - 45 YRS.
6.    VISHAL S/O PREETAM SINGH KANJAR,
AGE- 60 YRS.
7.    KISHAN S/O SHRI PANCHAM AGE - 55
YRS.,
8.    LAXMAN S/O HARIMOHAN KANJAR
(DEAD) THROUGH LRS :-
(A) SMT. GAURA BAI W/O LATE SHRI LAXMAN,
AGE-60 YRS.,
(B) RAJU S/O LATE SHRI LAXMAN, AGE - 25
YRS.
9.    BALVEER S/O SHRI SHAYMBABU (DEAD)
THROUGH LRS :-
(A) SMT. SUNITA @ KALIYA BAI W/O LATE SHRI
BALVEER, AGE - 50 YRS.,
(B) SANDEEP KANJA S/O LATE SHRI BALVEER,
AGE - 25 YRS.,
(C) VICKY KANJAR S/O LATE SHRI BALVEER,
                                                     2

AGE - 20 YRS.,
10.   MOHAN S/O SHRI SURTIYA, AGE - 40
YRS/,
11.   AVADHESH S/O SHRI MANSHA RAM
MIRDHA, AGE - 42 YRS.,
12.   RAMLAKHAN S/O SHRI BHAGGA JATAV,
AGE - 38 YRS.,
13.   LAKHPAT S/O SHRI GIRAVAR, AGE - 60
YRS.,
ALL R/O- VILLAGE SUKHA PATHA, TEHSIL
TAPPA PICHHORE, DISTRICT GWALIOR (M.P.)


                                                                             ........PETITIONERS

(BY SHRI R.P. GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND

1.     THE STATE OF M.P., DEPARTMENT OF
LAND REVENUE RECORD, VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
(M.P.)
2.     THE BOARD OF REVENUE, GWALIOR,
THROUGH PRESIDENT (M.P.)
3.     THE COLLECTOR GWALIOR, DISTRICT
GWALIOR, (M.P.)
4.     RANJEET SINGH S/O SHRI ROOP SINGH
KANJAR,
5.     RAKESH S/O SHRI VAISHI JATAV,
ALL R/O - VILLAGE SUKHA PATHA, TEHSIL
TAPPA PICHHORE, DISTRICT GWALIOR (M.P.)
                                                                           ........RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI RAMADHAR CHOUBEY - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 & 3/STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on                                 :        29th of February, 2024
Pronounced on                         :       8th of May, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar-
IV passed the following:
                                     3

                                ORDER

Petitioners are challenging the order dated 8.5.2018 passed by Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Case No. Revision 2746-PBR/2013 titled as Ranjeet Singh & Others Vs. State of M.P. and order dated 15.12.2012 passed by Collector, District Gwalior in Case No.16/2011-12/Suo Motu Revision titled as State of M.P. Vs. Shri Dhanpal.

2. Facts in brief as appeared in impugned order are that petitioners along with some other villagers were allotted Government land on the basis of being landless vide order dated 2.5.2002 passed by Naib Tahsildar, Circle Pichhore Tahsil Dabra. Illegality made in the allotment was raised by some villagers. Matter was referred to SDO(Revenue) Dabra for enquiry, spot inspection, spot report and submission of report after hearing the affected persons. Naib Tahsildar, Circle Billowa enquired the matter and submitted report that some persons mentioned in list were not landless at the time of allotment, they concealed the material fact of holding land to him and allotment was made to those persons who were not entitled for that. SDO forwarded the report of Tahsildar to Collector for necessary action. Collector took suo motu cognizance in the matter, issued notice to the non-applicants/petitioners and after giving full opportunity of hearing and examination of record found that petitioners were not landless while they were allotted the land. It was also found by the Collector that petitioners concealed the material fact of holding land and proclamation was also not issued before allotment and passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2012 rejecting the allotment order in favour of petitioners and directed the SDO(Revenue) Dabra to record the land as Government land. Departmental enquiry was also directed to be initiated against the then,

Patwari Village Sukha Patha. Being aggrieved with the order of Collector, petitioners filed revision before Board of Revenue which came to be decided, vide order dated 8.5.2018, dismissing the revision and order of Collector has been maintained and confirmed. Both the impugned orders are impugned in the present petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Advocate for State.

4. Main submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that petitioners were landless when patta was granted to them. Report of Naib Tahsildar is against the fact, he submitted a wrong report. Petitioners belong to Scheduled Tribe Category. It is not mentioned in the patta/allotment that land is being given to the petitioners defined in Class-1. They should come in the list of Class-2. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that complainant who was rival to petitioners made a fake complaint against the petitioners and Collector took cognizance after a long time of allotment. Collector has no right to take suo motu cognizance in the matter. Family of Petitioners are totally dependent on agriculture, if allotment/patta is canceled, their family will go on starvation. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that impugned order may be quashed and allotment be restored.

5. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and submits that petitioners concealed the factum of holding land with them. On complaint, matter came into notice and on enquiry, it was found that petitioners were not landless. They concealed the fact of holding land. They were given sufficient opportunity but failed to show that they were landless. Naib Tahsildar rightly enquired the matter and submitted a report before Collector and

Collector passed the impugned order in view of the facts and it has been confirmed by the Board of Revenue. Thus, petition deserves dismissal.

6. Admittedly, petitioners were allotted land by the Government on the basis of landless but on the complaint being made by some other villagers, enquiry was directed to be made by the Collector. Naib Tahsildar concerned conducted an enquiry and after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, found that petitioners/some allottees were not landless, their family members were holding land at the time of allotment. Irregularity was also reported by the Naib Tahsildar. Learned Collector before passing the impugned order issued notice to the respondents who filed objection but petitioners could not show their bona fide. They were not found landless. Thus, Collector passed the order rejecting the allotment. Order of Collector has also been affirmed by Board of Revenue.

7. It is well settled that High Court cannot go deep in the factual aspect of the matter like an appeal, in exercise of power under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

8. In view of the above discussion, petition fails and deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed.

9. District Magistrate, Gwalior shall ensure the compliance of the order forthwith.

10. It is generally seen that with the connivance of local revenue official / officers or despite order otherwise, encroacher continues to occupy the government land or taking shelter of pendency in the Court, they do not leave the possession and officers responsible keep mum so as to give benefit to them, therefore, such officer as well person encroaching the government land should be identified and such

government property, which are still in illegal possession of people, should also be identified within a reasonable time, but not later than six months. Necessary action is directed to be taken against them, under the intimation of Registry of this Court.

11. In many of the cases, it is generally seen that officer passing the orders generally keep their names hidden so that they cannot be easily identified, therefore, they are saved from action.

12. It is directed that Chief Secretary of the State to issue a circular directing the officers in State to show their names below the signature, within a period of 15 days from the date when order is received in his office, under the intimation of the Court with follow up action so that reference may be made against them, if so requires.

13. Principal Registrar of this Court and Advocate General, holding position, are directed to communicate this order to the Chief Secretary of the State for necessary action in the light of observations made in the body of this judgment.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV) JUDGE

Rohit ROHIT SHARMA 2024.05.17 19:30:26 +05'30'