Back
2012 jk fu 226 o 2012 RN 226
¼mPp U;k;ky;½(HIGH COURT)
U;k- ,l-ds- xaxsys rFkk U;k- c`tfd‘kksj nqcs
S.K. Gangele and Brij Kishore Dube, JJ.
eka dSyknsoh ,UVjizkbtst }kjk ikVZulZ fo- e-iz- jkT; rFkk vU;
Maa Kaila Devi Enterprises through its Partners
v. State of M.P. and others
fjV ;kfpdk dzekad 1379 lu~ 2011 ¼Xokfy;j½( fu.khZr fnukad 28-3-2012A
Writ Petition No. 1379 of 2011 (Gwalior);
Decided on 28.3.2012.
2- uxj Hkwfe ¼vf/kdre lhek vkSj fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1976 & /kkjk 2 ¼B½] ¼Fk½ 3 rFkk 4 & /kkjd ds fo#) bu mica/kksa ds varxZr dk;Zokfg;k¡ & l{ke izkf/kdkjh us ik;k fd Hkwfe /kkjd tks‘kh dqVqac ds lnL;ksa ds ikl dksbZ vfr‘ks"k Hkwfe ugha gS & dk;Zokfg;k¡ lekIr dh xbZa & ls vfHkizsr ljdkj us Lo;a Lohdkj fd;k fd tks‘kh dqVqac laifÙk dk Lokeh Fkk & ,slh laifÙk ds Øsrk ds fo#) vf/kØe.k dh dk;Zokgh lafLFkr ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 3] 22 rFkk 29
3- Hkkxhnkjh vf/kfu;e] 1932 & /kkjk 14 & e-iz- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 & /kkjk 248 & laifÙk dk Lokeh QeZ & vf/kØe.k dh dk;Zokfg;k¡ & NksVh lh nks nqdkuksa ds fy, ,d Hkkxhnkj vFkok blds HkkM+snkjksa ds fo#) lafLFkr ugha dh tk ldrha & ,slh dk;Zokfg;k¡ dsoy Lokeh QeZ }kjk Hkkxhnkjksa ds fo#) lafLFkr dh tk ldrh gSaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % /kkjk ls ;g Li"V gS fd QeZ blds }kjk vftZr laifÙk dh Lokeh gSA Lohdkjr%] ;kph QeZ }kjk laifÙk Ø; dh xbZ Fkh] blfy,] e-iz- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 dh /kkjk 248 ds v/khu QeZ ds fo#) izdj.k ntZ djuk vko‘;d FkkA ¼iSjk 23
4- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 248 ¼1½] ijarqd ¼nks½ & /kkjk ds mica/kksa dk ykxw gksuk & uxjikfydk ifj"kn~ Xokfy;j ds vfHkys[k esa laifÙk laor~ 1968 ls tks‘kh dqVqac ds uke vfHkfyf[kr & laifÙk dj dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk jgk & ;kph }kjk edku dk dqN Hkkx Ø; fd;k x;k & fuekZ.k 15-8-1950 ls vR;f/kd iwoZ dk & ijarqd ds izHkko ls & /kkjk 248 ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs & rglhynkj dks dk;Zokgh lafLFkr djus dh ‘kfä ;k izkf/kdkj ugha gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % e/; izns‘k Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 dh /kkjk 248 ds ijarqd ds vuqlkj rglhynkj dks e/; Hkkjr {ks= esa 15 vxLr 1950 ds iwoZ fufeZr Hkou ;k fuekZ.k dk;ksZa }kjk fd, x, vf/kØe.k dks gVkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh lafLFkr djus dh ‘kfä ;k izkf/kdkj ugha gSA ml le; dh uxjikfydk ifj"kn~ Xokfy;j ds laor~ 1968 ds vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj] laifÙk tks‘kh dqVqac ds uke Fkh rFkk bl ij edku cuk FkkA ;kph QeZ }kjk edku dk dqN Hkkx Ø; fd;k x;k FkkA blfy, rglhynkj dks e/; izns‘k Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 dh /kkjk 248 ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;k¡ djus dh ‘kfä rFkk izkf/kdkj ugha FkkA ¼iSjk 24
ifj.kker%] ;kphx.k dh ;kfpdk eatwj dh tkrh gSA lafgrk dh /kkjk 248 ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;k¡ lafLFkr djus ds laca/k esa izR;FkhZx.k dh dkjZokbZ rFkk dCtk izfr izkfIr vikLr fd, tkrs gSaA vc {ks= [kqyh Hkwfe gS D;ksafd fuekZ.k fxjk fn;k gS] blfy,] Hkwfe ij ;kphx.k dk dCtk izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gSA dyDVj }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k fnukad 10 ekpZ 2011 ,rn~}kjk vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA ¼iSjk 32
5- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 248 rFkk 41] vuq- ,d & fu- 4 ls 9 & leu] lwpuk i= dh rkehy rFkk izfØ;k ds laca/k esa fu;e & vf/kØe.k dh dk;Zokfg;k¡ & izHkkfor O;fä dks lwpuk i= tkjh ugha fd;k x;k & LFky ij pLik }kjk lwpuk i= dh rkehy dh xbZ & fu;eksa ds varxZr fofgr izfØ;k dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k & ;g Hkh fofuf‘pr ugha fd;k x;k fd fdlh izdkj dk vf/kØe.k gS ;k ugha & laifÙk dk dCtk vR;f/kd euekuh jhfr ls fd;k x;k & ,slh dkjZokbZ fcuk fdlh ‘kfä rFkk vf/kdkfjrk ds gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % mi;qZä fu;eksa ds voyksdu ls] ;g Li"V gS fd mi;qZä fu;eksa ds vuqlkj lwpuk i= dh rkehy ugha dh xbZ Fkh vkSj u gh bu fu;eksa dk ikyu fd;k x;k gSA izkf/kdkjh }kjk ;g Hkh fofuf‘pr ugha fd;k x;k fd D;k Hkwfe ij fdlh izdkj dk vf/kØe.k Fkk ;k ughaA ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd izkf/kdkjh us dCtk gVkus dk viuk eu cuk fy;k Fkk rFkk iz;ksx ds fy, dsoy vkSipkfjdrk,a iw.kZ dh xbZa gSaA ¼iSjk 25
;g Li"V gS fd izkf/kdkjh vius Lo;a ds fy, fof/k ugha cuk ldrkA ;g fof/k ds fu;e ds vfrØe.k esa gksxk rFkk ljdkj dsoy fof/k }kjk Kkr ;k ekU;rk izkIr jhfr esa gh dCtk iqu% xzg.k dj ldrh gSA izLrqr izdj.k esa] izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ,slh jhfr esa dkjZokbZ dh gS tSls fd mUgksaus Lo;a ds fy, fof/k cukbZ gSA ;kphx.k ls laifÙk dk dCtk fof/k dh izfØ;k dk lE;d~ ikyu fd, fcuk vR;f/kd euekuh jhfr ls fd;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 28
;g Li"V gS fd lafgrk dh /kkjk 248 ds v/khu ;kphx.k ds fo#) dk;Zokgh lafLFkr ugha dh xbZ Fkh rFkk dsoy Hkwfe ds NksVs Hkkx ds laca/k esa ,d Hkkxhnkj Jh fot; xks;y ds fo#) izdj.k ntZ fd;k x;k FkkA iwoZ esa laifÙk tks‘kh dqVqac ds uke Fkh rFkk mlds i‘pkr~ uxj Hkwfe vf/kdre lhek vf/kfu;e ds varxZr dk;Zokfg;k¡ lafLFkr dh xbZa Fkha rFkk mu dk;Zokfg;ksa esa] ;g Bgjk;k x;k Fkk fd tks‘kh dqVqac dks laifÙk j[kus dk vf/kdkj Fkk] gekjs er esa] izR;FkhZx.k }kjk ;g Bgjkrs gq, fof/k dh =qfV dh xbZ gS fd laifÙk ds LokfeRo dk vf/kdkj ljdkj dk gSA blfy, lafgrk dh /kkjk 248 ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;k¡ fcuk fdlh ‘kfä rFkk izkf/kdkj ds lafLFkr dh xbZ gSaA ¼iSjk 29
6- fof/k & dk fu;e & mfpr fu.kZ; lqukus ds fy, & U;k;ky; ds le{k lgh rF; rFkk nLrkost j[kuk pkfg, & ;fn iz‘kkldh; izkf/kdkjh nwf"kr nLrkost j[krs gSa & mfpr fu.kZ; lqukuk cgqr dfBu gksxk & izHkkfor O;fä ij lwpuk i= ;k leu dh rkehy ds laca/k esa & nwf"kr nLrkost j[ks x, & leu dh rkehy ds fo"k; esa tk¡p fd;k tkuk funsf‘krA ¼iSjk 30
(1) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S. 117 -- entries in revenue record -- not conclusive proof about title and ownership -- it can only raise presumption about possession and ownership -- but such presumption can be reverted on certain other factors. AIR 1973 SC 408, (2008) 8 SCC 12, 2007 RN 361 (SC) and (2009) 15 SCC 429 followed. [Paras 17 to 22
(2) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 -- Ss. 2 (l), (q), 3 and 4 -- proceedings under against holder -- competent authority found that members of Joshi family holders of land have no vacant land -- proceedings dropped -- means of -- Government itself accepted that Joshi family was owner of the property -- proceedings of encroachment cannot be initiated against purchaser of such land. [Paras 13, 22 and 29
(3) Partnership Act, 1932 -- S.14 -- M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S. 248 -- ownership of property with the firm -- encroachment proceedings -- cannot be initiated against one partner for small two shops or against its tenants -- such proceedings can be initiated only against owner firm through its partners.
Held : From the section, it is clear that firm is the owner of the property acquired by it. Admittedly, the property was purchased by the petitioner firm, hence, it was mandatory to register case under section 248 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 against the firm. [Para 23
(4) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S.248 (1), Proviso (ii) -- applicability of provisions of section -- since Samvat 1968 property recorded in name of Joshi family in record of Municipal Council Gwalior -- property tax having been paid -- some portion of house purchased by petitioner -- construction much before 15.8.1950 -- by virtue of proviso -- provisions of section 248 not attracted -- Tahsildar has no power or authority to initiate proceedings.
Held : As per the proviso of section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, a Tahsidar has no power and authority to initiate proceedings in regard to removal of encroachment made by building or works construction in the Madhya Bharat Region before 15th August, 1950. As per the record of the then Municipal Council Gwalior of Samvat 1968, the property was in the name of Joshi Family and it consisted a house. Some portion of the house was purchased by the petitioner firm. Hence, the Tahsildar had no power and authority to initiate proceedings under section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. [Para 24
Consequently, the petition of the petitioners is allowed. The action of the respondents in regard to initiation of proceedings under section 248 of the Code and recovery of possession are hereby quashed. Now the area is an open land because construction has been demolished, hence, possession of the petitioners over the land is restored. The order dated 01st March, 2011 passed by the Collector Gwalior is hereby quashed. [Para 32
(5) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- Ss.248 and 41, Sch. I -- Rr. 4 to 9 -- rules regarding service of summons, notices and processes -- proceedings of encroachment -- notice was not issued to affected person -- service of notice was made by affixing on spot -- prescribed procedure under rules not followed -- it was also not decided whether there was any encroachment or not -- possession of property was taken in most arbitrarily manner -- such action is without any power and jurisdiction.
Held : From the perusal of the aforesaid Rules, it is clear that no notice was served in accordance with the aforesaid Rules, neither these Rules have been followed. The authority has also not decided the fact that whether there was any encroachment over the land or not. It appears that the authority had made up his mind to remove the persons and for that purpose only formalities have been completed. [Para 25
It is clear that authority cannot become the law unto themselves. It would be in violation of rule of law and the Government can resume possession only in a manner known or recognised by law. In the present case, the authorities have acted in such a manner that they became the law unto themselves. The possession of the property of the petitioners has been taken in most arbitrarily manner without following the due procedure of law. (2002) 3 SCC 137 and (2010) 8 SCC 383 followed. [Para 28
It is clear that no proceedings was initiated against the petitioners under section 248 of the Code and only in regard to small portion of the land a case was registered against one partner Mr. Vijay Goyal. Earlier, the property was in the name of Joshi family and thereafter the proceedings under the Urban Land and Ceiling Act were initiated and in those proceedings, it was held that Joshi family had right to own the property, in our opinion, the respondents have committed an error of law in holding that the Government has right of ownership of the property. Hence, the proceedings initiated under section 248 of the Code are without any power and jurisdiction. [Para 29
(6) Law -- rule of -- for pronouncing correct judgment -- correct facts and documents should be placed before the Court -- if administrative authority place doctored documents -- it would be very difficult to pronounce proper judgment -- in regard to service of notice or summon on affected persons -- doctored documents placed -- conduct an inquiry in regard to service of summons directed. [Para 30
Key Points: - The court held that entries in revenue records are not conclusive proof of title and may be rebutted by other factors, citing Supreme Court decisions on the non-conclusive nature of revenue entries (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It found that notices under section 248 and due procedural requirements (S.248, Rules 4-9, Sch. I) were not properly followed, and the Tahsildar lacked authority in certain pre-1950 encroachment contexts, thus the encroachment removal actions were arbitrary and without power (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [27000229850025]. - The judgment emphasizes that the government cannot dispossess or resume possession outside lawful, recognized procedures and that mutation or revenue entries cannot automatically confer title; the petitioners’ possession and ownership rights as a firm were recognized, with the firm treated as owner for purposes of 248 actions under the MP Code, and the matter remitted to proper legal processes (suits for declaration/possession) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [27000229850028][27000229850031].
S.K. Gangele, J. - 1. The petitioners have filed this petition against the demolition of their property. The petitioners further prayed for delivery of possession of the property, which has illegally been demolished and also compensation on account of illegal demolition of their property.
2. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It purchased the property vide five sale-deeds, copies of the same have been filed along with the petition as Annexure P/6 collectively from Ashok Dattarey Joshi, Smt. Anuradha, Dusyant, Devyani Joshi, Avinas Dattarey Joshi, Smt. Smita Avinas Joshi, Ravi Avinas Joshi, Shrikant Avinas Joshi. All the sale-deeds were executed by the aforesaid persons in favour of the petitioner partnership firm on 31/3/2006 in regard to different area and different consideration. In the first sale the consideration is of Rs. 53.00 lac and the area is 75’9'’x 61’2'’=4632 square feet, in the Second sale-deed the consideration is of Rs.35.00 lacs and the area is 75’9'’x 76’11'’ and 21’x 6’10'’=3057 square feet, in the third sale deed the consideration is of Rs.53.00 lacs and the area is
33’2'’x 129' and 12’9'’x 26'=4609 square feet. Similarly in the other two sale-deeds the consideration are of Rs.32.40 lacs and Rs.44.50 lacs and the area are 25’x82’9’’=2068 square feet and 25’x155'= 3875 square feet. The sale-deeds are dated 31st March, 2006. After purchase of the property, the name of the petitioner firm was mutated in the record of Municipal Corporation. The petitioners also constructed some shops after dismantling the old construction. However, major portion of the construction which was at the time of purchase remained as it is. The property is situate at Jayendraganj, Lashkar, Gwalior at Survey No.635. The total area of the survey number No. 635 is 2.163 hectares.
3. In the Municipal records of Municipality Gwalior for the Samvat 1968, the name of the owner of the land of the property was recorded as Ramchandra s/o Gangadhar Joshi, since then, the entry had been continued. The property tax was also paid by the family members of Joshi family to the Municipal Corporation. The competent authority registered a case vide case no.29/79-80/ under Section 20B of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called as ‘the Urban Land Ceiling Act’) against Mr.Dattarey Joshi and family members. Before the competent authority, Joshi family pleaded that they were owners of the house and property, it was received by them as an ancestral property, it was registered in the name of Dattarey Ramchandra Joshi and subsequently the family members; Ashok and Avinas, who were sons of Dattarey Joshi and his wife Smt. Sushila and daughters Sheela, Nilima, Kumari Swati inherited the property. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the competent authority held that all the family members were owners of the property and it was less than 460.072 square meter in the name of each family member, hence, it is within the ceiling limit. Consequently, the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings were dropped vide order dated 21/01/1980, copy of the order has been filed as Annexure P/3 along with the petition.
4. After purchase of the property by the petitioner firm, the Collector stamps initiated proceedings against the petitioners firm in regard to under valuation of the property at the time of registration. The Collector, Stamps held that the petitioners did not value the property properly and deficit stamps duty was paid and ordered payment of certain stamp duty against the petitioners. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid order before the Commissioner, that was dismissed subsequently. The Board of Revenue remanded the matter back.
5. The authorities without giving any notice to the petitioners demolished the property of the petitioners and also took over possession on 16/2/2011. It is pleaded by the respondents in the return that the property is a part and parcel of Survey
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
