Veer Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4950 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Veer Singh Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                     1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                AT G WA L I O R
                                      BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                         Writ Petition No.5309 of 2025
                             Veer Singh Lodhi & Others
                                          Vs.
                                State of M.P. & Others
APPERANCE
       Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the petitioners.
       Shri K.S. Tomar - Government Advocate for the State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reserved on                           :      24/02/2025
        Delivered on                          :      1/3/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Karera, District Shivpuri whereby, the application filed for release of respondent No.5 has been allowed holding that the proceedings under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 of the Tehsildar to be non- maintainable.

2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the owners of the land bearing Survey No.248, ad-measuring 0.28 hectares situated at Village Salaiya, Karera District Shivpuri. They had filed an application

under Section 250 of the Code before Tehsildar, Karera, District Shivpuri with an allegation that the private respondents had encroached upon the land in question. The learned Tehsildar while issuing notices to the private respondents had called for the report from concerned Patwari. In compliance whereof, the report was submitted by the Patwari wherein encroachment over the land in question was found. Vide order dated 22.09.20221, the learned Tehsildar after perusing the report of the Patwari had allowed the said application directing the private respondents to remove the encroachment made over the land in question and had imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- upon them. As the directions issued vide order dated 22.09.2021 with regard to removal of the encroachment over the land in question were not complied with, the Tehsildar vide order dated 02.11.2021 forwarded the matter to SDO, Karera in order to ensure civil jail proceedings. Upon which, the SDO had registered a Case No.0005/2021-2022/A-70 and had issued notices to the respondents, but they declined to take notices and accordingly, vide order dated 21.12.2021, jail warrants were issued to them. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.5 was arrested on 01.11.2024. On 06.11.2024, an application was moved by one of the sons of Sughar Singh before the SDO assailing the arrest warrant as well as the proceedings of the Tehsildar. The SDO, on the aforesaid application, had called for the report from the Revenue Inspector. In compliance whereof, the report was submitted by the Patwari wherein it was found that there was encroachment over the land in question, but the learned SDO had passed the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 directing release of respondent No.5 holding that though the provisions of Section 250 of the Code are applied for the encroachment over the agricultural land,

but herein case, since there is construction over the land in question, the order cannot be implemented. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that the learned SDO had passed the impugned order herein ignoring the fact that the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 22.09.2021 was neither challenged before any higher authority nor was set aside by any competent Court, thus, had exceeded its jurisdiction, which is per se illegal.

4. It was further argued that since the land in question has not been expressly diverted therefore, it is still recorded in the revenue records as agriculture land and the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code are summary proceedings intended for the benefit of the agriculturist, however, the act of respondents, resorting to these summary proceedings, with intent to develop the land in question has encroached upon it, is impermissible.

5. It was further argued that even the land is diverted or used for other than agricultural purpose it is mandatory to maintain the revenue record by the Tahsdilar in which the nature of the land is to be mentioned and in the present matter, the land is recorded as agricultural land, therefore, as per the simple and plain definition of Section 250 of the Code if the Bhumiswami approaches the Tahsildar with a prayer that the complainant is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in the due course of law then the Tahsildar is bound to entertain the application under Section 250 MPLRC, hence the application filed before the Tahsildar is maintainable and the Tahsildar has not committed any error of law while entertaining the said application. It was thus prayed that

the present petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order herein and the respondents authorities be directed to the comply with the order dated 22.09.2021. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the order dated 01.10.2020 passed by this Court in the matter of Sunita vs. State of M.P. & Others in Misc. Petition No.5156 of 2019 in which it has been held that if the construction is illegal that too on land without title, then it will not come in the way of exercise of powers of the Tehsildar under Section 250 of the Code.

6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State while supporting the impugned herein has opposed the prayer so made by counsel for the petitioners and had prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

7. Heard.

8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Sunita vs. State of M.P. & Others passed in Misc. Petition No.5156 of 2019 vide order dated 01.10.2020 has held as under:

"32. The third issue which is under consideration before this Court is in respect of the scope of section 250 of the MPLRC. Shri Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the land in question is though recorded as agricultural land but no agricultural activities have ever taken place either by the petitioners, respondent no.4 or their predecessor-in-title. The present respondent No.4 is a developer and purchased the land for development and not for agricultural purposes, therefore, section 250 proceeding ought not to have been

invoked. For ready reference section 250 MPLRC is reproduced below:

250. Reinstatement of bhumiswami improperly dispossessed.- (1) For the purpose of this section and section 250-A bhumiswami shall include occupancy tenant and Government lessee.] (1-a) If a bhumiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law or if any person unauthorisedly continues in possession of any land of the bhumiswami to the use of which such per son has ceased to be entitled under any provision of this Code, the bhumi-swami or his successor-in-interest may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of the possession, -

(a) in case of bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub- section (6) of Section 165 -

(i) before the 1st July, 1978 in cases of unauthorized dispossession prior to the 1st July, 1976; and ( ii) in any other cases within five year s from the date of dispossession or from the date on which the possession of such person becomes unauthorized, as the case may be;

(b) in case of a bhumiswami not covered by clause (a) , within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date on which possession of such person becomes unauthorised, as the case may be.

(1-b) The Tahsildar shall on coming to know that a bhumiswami has been dispossessed of hi s land otherwise than in due course of law, suo motu start proceedings under this section.

(2) The Tahsildar shall, after making an enquiry into the respective claims of the par

ties, decide the application and when he order s the restoration of the possession to the bhumiswami, put him in possession of the land. (2-a) The proceedings started under this section shall after receipt of reply from the other party, continue from day to day unless for reasons to be recorded in writing a longer adjournment is considered necessary and in that case a copy of the order sheet containing the reasons for such adjournment shall be sent to the Collector.

(3) The Tahsildar may at any stage of the enquiry pass an interim order for handing over the possession of the land to the bhumiswami, occupancy tenant or Government lessee, as the case may be, if he finds that he was dispossessed by the opposite party within six months prior to the submission of the application or commencement of suo motu proceedings under this section. In such case the opposite party shall, if necessary, be ejected under orders of the Tahsildar .] (4) When an interim order has been pas sed under sub- section (3) the opposite party may be required by the Tahsildar to execute a bond for such sum as the Tahsildar may deem fit for abstaining from taking possession of land until the final order is passed by the Tahsildar . (5) If the per son executing a bond is found to have entered into or taken possession of the land in contravention of the bond, the Tahsildar may forfeit the bond in whole or in part and may recover such amount as an arrear of land revenue. (6) If the order pas sed under sub-

section (2) is in favour of the applicant the Tahsildar shall also award compensation to be paid to the applicant by the opposite party which shall be at the prorata rate of two thousand rupees per hectare per year.

(7) The compensation awarded under this section shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.

(8) when an order has been pas sed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of the possession to the bhumiswami the Tahsildar may require the opposite. Party to execute a bond for such sum as the Tahsildar may deem f it for abstaining from taking possession of the land and contravention of the order.

(9) Where an order has been passed under sub-section (2) for the restoration of the possession of the bhumiswami, the opposite party shall also be liable to fine which may extend to [ twenty per centum of the market value of such land] :

[Proviso Omitted] Section 250 (1-a) provides that if a Bhumiswami is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in due course of law or if any person unauthorizedly continues in possession of any land of the Bhumiswami to the use of which such person has ceased to be entitled under any provision of this Code, the Bhumiswami or his successor-in-interest may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of the possession. Section 250 (1-b) gives power to the Tahsildar to initiate suo moto proceeding under this section on coming to know that the Bhumiswami has been dispossessed of his land. After making any enquiry into the respective claims of the parties the Tahsildar under section (2) of section 250 may order for restoration of the possession to the Bhumiswami and put him into the possession of the land. Section 250 (3) gives power to the Tahsildar to pass an interim order for

handing over the possession of the land to the Bhumiswami, occupancy tenant or Govt. lessee, as the case may be. Sub section (9) gives power to the Tahsildar in addition to the order of restoration of possession to impose fine. Learned Revenue authorities have placed reliance over the definition of the 'land' given in section 2(1)(k) of the Code and according to which the land means a portion of the earth's surface whether or not under water, and where land is referred to in this Code it shall be deemed to include all things attached to or permanently fastened to anything attached to such land. In the case of Narayan Vyankatrao vs. Nagubai Balaji and others reported 1977 MPLJ 578 this Court had an occasion to deal with this definition of land and observed that the term refers not only to open land but also to everything permanently fastened to the earth. The provisions of the Code apply equally to agricultural as well as non-agricultural land.

It is also not disputed that the land in question is situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Indore but still recorded as agricultural land and no order for diversion has ever been passed. Even the land is diverted or used for other than agricultural purpose it is mandatory to maintain the revenue record by the Tahsdilar in which the nature of the land is to be mentioned and in the present case same is recorded as agricultural land, therefore, as per the simple and plain definition of section 250 if the Bhumiswami approaches the Tahsildar that the complainant

is dispossessed of the land otherwise than in the due course of law then the Tahsildar is bound to entertain the application under section 250 MPLRC, hence the application filed by the respondent No.4 before the Tahsildar is maintainable and the Tahsildar has not committed any error of law while entertaining the said application."

9. Further in the matter of Narayan V/s. Mst. Nagubai & others reported in 1978 ILR 178, this Court has held that the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 are not confined only to agricultural lands. They also deal with non-agricultural lands situated in urban area also. It has also been held that according to the definition of land, it is apparent that the term 'land' does not only refer to open land but also includes every thing permanently fastened to earth and treated the same as a part of the land.

10. Further in the matter of Krishnakumardas V/s. Balramdas passed by this Court vide order dated dated 22.3.1968, this Court has held that Section 250 of the MPLRC clearly provides a speedy and summary remedy when the possession of the Bhumiswami was to be restored and the land is fictionally meant to include even buildings on the land.

11. Thus, in the light of aforesaid discussion if any construction is raised over the land in question, is illegal that too on the land without title, it cannot come in way of exercising the statutory power of Tehsildar under Section 250 of the MPLRC as in order to defeat of the provisions of MPLRC anybody can make illegal construction on the land and stall the proceedings of Section 250.

12. Thus, the finding of the learned SDO given vide dated 11.11.2024 that the provisions of the Code apply only to agricultural land, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the judgment cited above, is not sustainable and accordingly, it is hereby set aside. The learned Tehsildar, Karera, District Shivpuri is directed to comply with its order dated 22.09.2021 in its true and letter spirit by adhering to the provisions of Section 250 of the Code.

13. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the present petition is allowed and disposed of.

(Milind Ramesh Phadke) Judge PAWAN pwn* KUMAR

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a 49f265f02d9d593f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA436EA65E26164 BEEED89153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.03.01 18:02:08 +05'30'