Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
J.K. JAIN, J.
Vaishnav Sahayak Trust - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1632 of 2014
Decided On : 19-02-2015
Article 226 - Challenge to Order under Section 250 of M.P. Land Revenue Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: M.P. Land Revenue Code, Section 250 - The court discussed the maintainability of the application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court during the pendency of a civil suit. The court also referred to precedents related to the availability of alternative remedies and the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered Public Trust, challenged the rejection of objections to the maintainability of an application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of certain land, which was also subject to a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent filed an application under Section 250 of the Code to obtain possession of the land, which was resisted by the petitioner on grounds of timeliness and jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent misconstrued the earlier order and that the application under Section 250 of the Code was not maintainable during the pendency of the civil suit. The court also noted that the application was time-barred and lacked material averments. The court held that the Revenue Court had committed a patent error and set aside the order of the Additional Tehsildar.
Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court during the pendency of a civil suit, and the timeliness and material averments of the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents related to the availability of alternative remedies, the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, and the interpretation of Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. The court emphasized that the application was not maintainable during the pendency of the civil suit and was time-barred.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Additional Tehsildar, and held that the application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code was not maintainable. The court emphasized the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the error committed by the Revenue Court.
JARAT KUMAR JAIN, J.
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.01.2014 whereby the respondent No. 3 Additional Tehsildar, Indore rejected the objections in regard to maintainability of the application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (in brief "Code").
2. Brief facts for adjudication of this matter are as under:--
"[i] The petitioner a registered Public Trust, is owner and in possession of the land survey Nos. 293, 295 and 296 admeasuring 0.279, 0.134 and 0.522 hectares respectively situated at Village Sirpur Tehsil Rau Distt. Indore. At the request of Kailash and Badrilal, the demarcation of the said land was done on 11.06.2009 and it was found that land comprised in Survey No. 295 (in brief "suit land") is within the boundary wall of petitioner Trust. After demarcation report Kailash, Badrilal and respondent No. 2 were trying to dispossess the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner Trust filed a Civil Suit No. 42-A/09 for declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of Additional District Judge, Indore. In the said suit petitioner and respondent No. 2 both have filed the applications under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. 13th Additional District Judge, Indore by a common order dated 01.03.2013 allowed the application of the petitioner directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from suit land whereas the application of the respondent No. 2 was dismissed. Against this order respondent No. 2 filed the Misc. Appeal before this Court which is pending.
[ii] During the pendency of the suit respondent No. 2 preferred an application under Section 131 of the Code. Learned Additional Tehsildar, Indore vide order dated 10.08.2009 directed the petitioner that the gate be kept open to provide means of access to respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved with this order petitioner preferred W.P. No. 6598/2009 wherein on 10.09.2009 ad interim stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently the application under Section 131 of the Code has been dismissed in non-prosecution. In the light of that order petitioner withdrew Writ Petition No. 6598/2009.
[iii] Thereafter respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 129 of the Code for demarcation of land. Ex parte order for demarcation was passed by the Tehsildar, Indore. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 7480/2013. This Court directed that the demarcation be done in the presence of both the parties. In compliance of the order demarcation was done in the presence of petitioner and respondent No. 2. In demarcation report it was found that land comprised in Survey No. 295 is in possession of petitioner. Thereafter W.P. No. 7480/2013 was disposed off with the direction that the parties shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law pursuant to the demarcation done by the Tehsildar.
[iv] On 28.12.2013 respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 250 of the Code before the respondent No. 3/Additional Tehsildar, Indore for obtaining possession from the petitioner of the land which is found in possession of the petitioner as per demarcation report. The petitioner resisted the application on two grounds (i) the application is time barred; and (ii) during the pendency of the civil suit, Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to entertain application under Section 250 of the Code. Additional Tehsildar vide order dated 30.01.2014 rejected the objections holding that the application is well within time and the Revenue Court is free to proceed even during pendency of civil suit. Being aggrieved with the order the petitioner preferred this petition."
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no direction in the order dated 20.12.2013 passed in W.P. No. 7486/2014 to initiate proceedings under Section 250 of the Code but the respondent No. 2 filed the application scandalizing the order. Since the suit for declaration and injunctio
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
