Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2233/2024 of LAKHAN SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAKON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2233 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.LAKHAN SINGH S/O SHRI BHIM SINGH, AGEDABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST.ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURIST.
2.AWAD NARAYAN S/O SHRI PRAYAG NARAYAN,AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
3.SATISH GARG @ SANTOSH S/O SHRI JAIGOPALGARG, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, GARG, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
4.DINESH KUMAR S/O SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
5.TARA CHAND S/O SHRI RAMHET, AGED ABOUT 65YEARS, YEARS,
6.KAMLESH S/O SHRI JAGDEESH KUMAR, AGEDABOUT 45 YEARS, ABOUT 45 YEARS,
7.MAHAVEER S/O SHRI RAMSWAROOP BASHYA,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
8.BHANU PRATAP SINGH RAJAWAT S/O SHRIINDRAPAL SINGH RAJAWAT, AGED ABOUT 50YEARS, INDRAPAL SINGH RAJAWAT, AGED ABOUT 50YEARS,
9.SHAMBHUDAYAL S/O SHRI MOHANLAL, AGEDABOUT 45 YEARS,ABOUT 45 YEARS,
10.PADAM SHARMA S/O SHRI PARAM SUKHSHARMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
11.BALCHAND S/O SHRI LAKSHMI NARAYANSHARAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.SHARAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
12.MURARILAL S/O SHRI KISHAN LAL RATHORE,AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DODHAR,TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYAAGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE DODHAR,TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
(BY SHRI S.K.JAIN AND SHRI AKSHAT JAIN - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONERS
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWANBHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.COMMISSIONER CHAMBAL DIVISION MORENA(MADHYA PRADESH)(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.COLLECTOR SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SHEOPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)PRADESH)
5.NAIB TEHSILDAR CIRCLE MAANPUR TEHSIL ANDDISTRICT SHEOPUR SHEOPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)DISTRICT SHEOPUR SHEOPUR (MADHYAPRADESH)
6.KANCHAN BAI W/O LATE SHRI DULLI ADIVASIR/O VILLAGE DODHAR TEHSIL AND DISTRICTSHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIVEK KHEDKAR - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
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. The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the constitution taking exception to the show cause notice dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P-1)passed by Naib Tehsildar, Manpur Tehsil Sheopur whereby petitioners were inreceipt of show cause notice to remove their illegal construction on or before30.01.2024 else their encroachment shall be removed.
2. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 21.07.1999 (Annexure P-3) land has been purchased allegedly by the petitioners
3
from one Jagni Bai who happens to be a Tribal woman and SDO Sheopurrecorded the said transaction in a manner which indicate that petitioners weregiven possession of the land in question. Later on, it appears that one KanchanBai w/o Dilli Adiwasi preferred an appeal before the Collector Sheopur and videorder dated 03.09.2020, said appeal was allowed and earlier transaction21.07.1999 was set-aside treating it to be void ab initio because no permission has been taken from Collector before taking the property of Tribal in their fold.
3. Against the said order, appeal is pending before CommissionerChambal Division Morena. Meanwhile, impugned show cause notice has beenreceived.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that despitependency of appeal before the Commissioner Chambal Division Morena,impugned show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners. Same isarbitrary and illegal. On a complaint being made by Kanchan Bai this action hasbeen taken but before initiating such action, no opportunity of hearing wasprovided to the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer on theground that petitioners were encroachers and their case was considered by theCollector District Sheopur and vide order dated 03.09.2020, appeal of KanchanBai was allowed and respondents were directed to be evicted. Thereafter,appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Commissioner Chambal DivisionMorena but same is pending for more than 3 years. Therefore, it appears thatpetitioners do not want to press the appeal and now intent to thwartproceedings pending before the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar impugned notices can be replied by the petitioners so that Tehsildar may proceed as per law.
6. Considering the submissions and the fact that appeal is still pending consideration before Commissioner Chambal Division Morena therefore, anyconsideration or observation by this Court would preempt the said statutoryappeal and since facts are mixed therefore, are to be ascertained at thedepartmental level only. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with direction tothe petitioners to approach the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner ChambalDivision Morena to make prayer for consideration over application for staywhich is still pending and if the said application is still pending thenCommissioner Chambal Division Morena shall decide the application for stayon its own merit within three weeks from the date of submission of certifiedcopy of this order so that proceedings pending before Naib-Tehsildar ManpurTehsil Sheopur may reach to the conclusion at the earliest thereafter.
7. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Ashish*
(ANAND PATHAK)JUDGE