Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/11214/2020 of BIRAZBAI Vs STATE OF M.P. THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 11214 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
BIRAZBAI W/O NARAYAN PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT 45YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GRAMSARANGI TEH PETLAWAD DISTRICT JHABUA (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI YASH PAL RATHORE - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
2.COLLECTOR JHABUA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - P.L. FOR STATE)(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4, THOUGH SERVED AND REPRESENTED)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
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.
ORDER
1. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.3.2020 passed by the Collector District Jhabua whereby he has set aside the order dated 15/11/2018passed by Nayab Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Sarangi, Tehsil Petlawad, DistrictJhabua and has allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC filedby respondent No.4 as a consequence of which the application under Section250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 filed by the petitioner has beenrejected.
2. In his application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 the petitionerhas averred that on 13/6/2018 he had got the disputed land demarcated in whichencroachment of respondent No.4 was found and upon request he refused toremove the encroachment. Thereafter he also fought with the petitioner. Forclaiming possession from respondent No.4 terming the same to be unauthorizedthe application was filed by petitioner. Before Nayab Tehsildar respondent No.4filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of theapplication under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 which was rejected by him buthas been allowed by the Collector.
3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Collector has takeninto consideration the reply filed by respondent No.4 on merits and thedocuments filed by him and by travelling beyond the application filed by thepetitioner and the documents annexed therewith has rejected the application. Itis trite law that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of theCPC it is only the plaint which would be the application under Section 250 ofthe Code, 1959 in the present case and the documents filed along with it whichalone can be taken into consideration and the reply of non-applicant ,respondent No.4 in the present case, and the documents filed by him cannot betaken into consideration.
4. A perusal of the application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 filed by the petitioner and the documents annexed therein does not show that thesame is barred by any law or any of the grounds specified under Order 7 Rule11 of the CPC. The Collector has gone in merits and in detail of the matter andhas also considered the validity of the Patta issued in favour of the petitionerwhich was wholly impermissible while considering an application under Order 7Rule 11 of the CPC. The impugned order passed by him thus is apparentlybeyond jurisdiction.
5 . As a result the impugned order dated 17/3/2020 passed by theCollector cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and the matter isremanded back to the Nayab Tehsildar for decision of the application filed bythe petitioner on merits.
6. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
C.c. as per rules.
SS/-
(PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE