Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/20807/2020 of MUKESH VERMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 31 December 2020
W.P. No.20807/2020 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE (SINGLE BENCH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE(SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
W.P. No. 20807 of 2020
(Mukesh S/o. Gendalal Verma & others. V/s. State of M.P. & others.)
Date : 31.12.2020:
Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.Heard on the question of admission through videoconferencing.
The petitioners have filed the present petition beingaggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 whereby he hasdemolished their house without giving any opportunity of hearing.
According to the petitioners, they are residing at VillagePalsud, Tehsil Rajpur, District Barwani since 2001 by virtue of theland allotted by the Gram Panchayatg to them. Respondent No.3issued notice u/s. 249 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC)which they had challenged by way of W.P. No.7728/2014 and videorder dated 20.3.2017 said writ petition was disposed of by thisCourt with direction to the Tehsildar to proceed u/s. 248 of theMPLRC. According to the petitioners, on 16.12.2020, respondentNo.3 issued the notice to petitioners No.1 and 2 and husband ofpetitioner No.3 u/s. 248 of the MPLRC calling upon them to appearbefore him on 18.12.2020 at 11 am. The petitioners appeared beforethe Tehsildar and filed their reply but without any further notice,respondent No.3 has demolished their house. Hence, the presentpetition before this Court.
In the reply (Annexure P/4), the petitioners havesubmitted that the earlier writ petition is pending before this Courtbut the said writ petition had already been disposed of on 20.3.2017.It appears that neither the petitioners nor the respondents had anyknowledge about the order passed by this Court on 20.3.2017.
Even otherwise, now the construction has beendemolished. The petitioners are seeking injunction that they be notdispossessed from the land in question. All these are disputedquestions of fact – whether the petitioners have been allotted the landin question or they are in possession over the same or not? Thepetitioners are having remedy to approach the competent civil court.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitionersprays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to approach thecompetent civil court.
Prayer allowed. This petition is dismissed as withdrawnwith the aforesaid liberty.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
V. JUDGE
Alok/-
Digitally signed by Alok Gargav
Date: 2021.01.02 15:34:25 +05'30'