Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/32105/2023 of RAMCHARAN GAUD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 32105 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1.RAMCHARAN GAUD S/O RAMDAYAL GAUD,AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMERR/O VILLAGE JHAPAN, TEHSIL TENDUKHEDA,DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMERR/O VILLAGE JHAPAN, TEHSIL TENDUKHEDA,DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.PRADEEP PATKAR S/O BARELAL PATKAR, AGEDABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOP KEEPERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOP KEEPERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)
3.RAJU SEN S/O BIHARI LAL SEN, AGED ABOUT 28YEARS, OCCUPATION: BARBER RESIDENCE OFVILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)YEARS, OCCUPATION: BARBER RESIDENCE OFVILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.MOTI RAJAK S/O PARMU RAJAK, AGED ABOUT 31YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRYCLEANER RESIDENCEOF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRYCLEANER RESIDENCEOF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.PRADEEP JOGI S/O CHAIN SINGH LODHI, AGEDABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOP KEEPERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOP KEEPERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)
6.MUKESH JAIN S/O ASHOK JAIN, AGED ABOUT 43Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: HOTEL OWNERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: HOTEL OWNERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)
7.ASHOK JAIN S/O RAMDAYAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOTEL OWNERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOTEL OWNERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)
2
8.ASHOK JAIN S/O PRAKASH @ SUKKE JAIN, AGEDABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOP KEEPERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOP KEEPERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)
9.BADRI SEN S/O HARIRAM SEN, AGED ABOUT 31YEARS, OCCUPATION: BARBER RESIDENCE OFVILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)YEARS, OCCUPATION: BARBER RESIDENCE OFVILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
10.DEEPAK JAIN S/O VINOD JAIN, AGED ABOUT 35YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOP KEEPER RESIDENCEOF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)YEARS, OCCUPATION: SHOP KEEPER RESIDENCEOF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
11.ANIL @ HALLE YADAV S/O LOCHAN YADAV,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MILKDAIRY RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MILKDAIRY RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)
12.RAMJI JODI S/O PRITAM JOGI, AGED ABOUT 37YEARS, OCCUPATION: BANGLE SHOP RESIDENCEOF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)YEARS, OCCUPATION: BANGLE SHOP RESIDENCEOF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
13.RAMKISHAN SEN S/O DHANNU LAL SEN, AGEDABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BARBERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BARBERRESIDENCE OF VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSILTENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI KAMLESH SINGH RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF FOREST FIRSTFLOOR, SATPUDA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF FOREST FIRSTFLOOR, SATPUDA BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.D.F.O. DAMOH FOREST OFFICE DAMOH DISTRICTDAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.GEM PARICHHETRA ADHIKARI RESIDENCE OFVILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)VILLAGE JHAPAN TEHSIL TENDUKHEDADISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
TENDUKHEDA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYAPRADESH)
5.FOREST DIVISION OFFICER NAURADEHI (WILDL I F E ) SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HITENDRA GOLHANI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
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
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in thenature of mandamus to quash Annexure P/2 dated 20.12.2023.
(2) That, any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and properin the circumstances of this case, along with the cost of writ petition."
2. It is the case of the petitioners that certain notices have been issued videAnnexure P/2 asking for removal of their shops in which they are running theirbusinesses since last more than a decade. The petitioner No.1 is the owner ofthe property, for which, Bhoo Adhikar Rin Pushtika has been filed along withthe petition to demonstrate that the same is an agricultural land and the shopswere constructed to the land adjacent to the road, in which, the petitioner Nos.2 to 13, who are the tenants of the petitioner No.1, are running their businesses.By way of impugned notices, they have been directed to remove the shops as aboundary wall is to be constructed in pursuance to Nauradehi National Park.
3. It is argued that the National Park is far away from the wall which is to beconstructed. It is pointed out that 50% construction of the wall has alreadybeen carried out. As the land belongs to the petitioner No.1, no proceeding foracquisition of the land was taken up and by the notices the respondents havethreatened for demolition of the shops, in case they are not being removed by the petitioners.
4. The record indicates that the land in question is an agricultural land. On aspecific query was made to the learned counsel for the petitioners todemonstrate sanction or permission from the department for construction of theshops, he fairly submits that there was no sanction or permission to constructthe shops in question. However, as the area in which the shops are constructedis adjacent to main road, therefore, they were constructed. Under thesecircumstances, the construction of the shops appears to be illegal as there wasno sanction or permission from the competent authority. The petitioner No.1shows himself to be the owner of the property. It is alleged that the respondentsare constructing the wall on his property, meaning thereby, the respondents areencroaching upon the property of the petitioner No.1, for which, a remedy isavailable to the petitioner No.1 elsewhere. Under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, no such relief as claimed can be extended to the petitioners. Thepetitioners may approach the concerning civil court for protecting their rightsand property.
5. Due to availability of alternative remedy to the petitioners, this courtrefrains from entertaining the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.However, the petitioners are always at liberty to approach the concerning civilcourt for redressal of their grievances.
sj
(VISHAL MISHRA)JUDGE