Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramjilal Barua (Died) Through Lrs (A). ... vs Smt.Ramwati on 16 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 16 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2627 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
1. RAMJILAL BARUA (DIED) THROUGH LRS (A).
RAJESH KUMAR BARUA S/O LATE SHRI RAMJI
LAL BARUA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O GRAM
DABOHA, POST DABOHA TEHSIL AND DISTRICT
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SATISH BARUA S/O LATE SHRI RAMJI LAL
BARUA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O GRAM
DABOHA POST DABOHA DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMSHANKAR BARUA S/O LATE SHRI RAMJI
LAL BARUA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O GRAM
DABOHA POST DABOHA DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAJNEEKANT BARUA S/O LATE SHRI RAMJI LAL
BARUA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O GRAM
DABOHA POST DABOHA DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI NAVAL KUMAR GUPTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SHATRU
DAMAN SINGH BHADOURIYIA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT.RAMWATI W/O LATE SHRI RAMSNEHI R/O
VILLAGE AND POST DABOHA DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI RAMSHEHI R/O
VILLAGE AND POST DABOHA DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMAKANT S/O LATE SHRI RAMSNEHI R/O
VILLAGE AND POST DABOHA DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROHIT SHARMA
Signing time: 17-05-2024
03:04:50 PM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI UPENDRA YADAV AND SHRI MADHUR BHARGAVA - ADVOCATES)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has assailed the order dated 6.2.2014 passed by Board of
Revenue District Gwalior whereby revision filed by respondents was allowed
and order passed by Additional Commissioner on 4.10.2011 allowing the
appeal preferred by the petitioner was set aside.
2. Short facts of the case are that respondents herein moved an
application under Section 178 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959
(in short 'MPLRC') before Tahsildar. Patwari proposed the partition (Batwara).
Petitioner filed objection upon proposed partition. Tahsildar rejected the
objections preferred by petitioner and passed the order on 24.8.2009 and
accepted the partition proposed by Patwari. Thereafter, petitioner challenged
the order of Tahsildar before SDO(Revenue) Bhind in appeal but the same was
dismissed by order dated 8.3.2011 and SDO has upheld the order passed by
Tahsildar, Bhind on 24.8.2009. The order passed by SDO was further assailed
by petitioner before Additional Commissioner by preferring Second Appeal and
same was allowed by order dated 4.10.2011. Additional Commissioner has
remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for passing fresh order after
affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Respondents assailed the
order of Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena before M.P.
Revenue Board, Gwalior in revision filed under Section 50 of MPLRC and
same was allowed by impugned order dated 6.2.2014 and Revenue Board has
set aside the order passed by Additional Commissioner dated 4.10.2011 and
restored order passed by Tahsildar. Petitioner assailed the order passed by
Revenue Board in the present petition and this Court vide order dated 13.5.2014
permitted Tahsildar to proceed with the matter but restrained from passing any
final order without leave of this Court. During the pendency of the proceedings
before Revenue Board, respondents have preferred a civil suit for declaration
and injunction and considering the orders passed by Tahsildar and Revenue
Board trial Court decreed the suit by judgment dated 4.3.2015.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that
judgment and decree are under challenge in appeal. However, status of appeal is
not known to him. Learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner submits that
objections preferred by petitioner before Tahsildar were not decided by passing
any speaking order and therefore Additional Commissioner has not committed
any error in setting aside the order passed by Tahsildar and SDO remanding the
matter back to the Tahsildar. He further submits that Revenue Board
unnecessarily interfered in the order passed by Additional Commissioner and
reasons assigned by the Revenue Board are incorrect. Objections raised before
Tahsildar considered by Additional Commissioner and finding of Revenue
Board that extraneous material was considered by Additional Commissioner is
incorrect. He prays for quashing the order passed by Revenue Board and
issuance of directions to the Tahsildar to conclude the proceedings and pass
final order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that though the
order passed by Revenue Board is according to law and Tahsildar has decided
objections submitted by petitioner but considering the fact that proceedings are
pending since 2009 and parties are facing litigations, directions may be issued to
Tahsildar to decide the application afresh after affording opportunity of hearing
to both parties in a short period.
5. After considering the arguments advanced by learned counsels for
parties, it appears that Tahsildar at the time of rejecting objections filed by
petitioner did not pass any speaking order. Therefore, Additional Commissioner
was justified in remanding the matter. Considering the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for respondents, present petition is disposed of. Order passed
by Revenue Board dated 6.2.2014 is hereby set aside and Tahsildar is directed
to decide the application filed by respondents under Section 178 of MPLRC
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order
after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties afresh in accordance
with law without influenced by any of the orders passed in first round of
litigation and by Civil Court.
6. With the aforesaid, present petition is allowed.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Rohit
