IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
GLR Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 5503 of 2015 (Gwalior); Decided on 17.1.2018.
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 44 (1) -- necessary party to appeal -- partition order signed by respondent No. 6 -- mutation took place -- land purchased by petitioner from recorded Bhumiswami -- residential houses constructed by him and sold to other persons -- after 16 years appeal filed by respondent No. 6 against partition and mutation orders -- without impleading and affording hearing opportunity to petitioner -- final order passed by S.D.O. -- such order is illegal -- same quashed -- petitioner purchaser is necessary party -- matter remanded to SDO for afresh hearing. [Paras 3, 10 & 16 to 20
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 1 R. 10 -- necessary party -- means -- without whom effective order/decree cannot be passed -- in the instant case, land purchased by petitioner after partition and mutation order -- if partition or mutation order is set aside without impleading petitioner -- then it would adversely affect rights of petitioner -- petitioner is necessary party. [Para 16
(3) Constitution of India -- Arts 226 and 227 -- bar of alternative remedy -- applicability -- without affording hearing opportunity to petitioner necessary interested party, final order passed by SDO -- availability of alternative remedy of appeal against such order -- no bar for entertaining writ petition. (2009) 14 SCC 338, (2007) 10 SCC 88, (1962) 1 SCR 753, (2003) 2 SCC 107, (2007) 9 SCC 593, (2009) 2 SCC 630, (2012) 11 SCC 651 and (1998) 8 SCC 1 followed. [Para 16
(4) Stay Order -- effect -- interim Order passed by Supreme Court in SLPs No. 11174 and 11175 of 2012 -- effect of such order should be consider by SDO. [Para 20
1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 15.6.2015 passed by the SDO, Revenue, Gwalior in Appeal No. 9/2014-15/Appeal, order dated 15/6/2015 passed by the SDO,Revenue, Gwalior in Appeal No. 10/2014-15/Appeal, order dated 31.7.2015 passed by the Tahsildar, Circle, Mehra, Gwalior in case No. 23/14-15/B-121 and order dated 31.7.2015 passed by the Tahsildar, Circle, Mehra, Gwalior in case No. 24/14-15/B-121.
2. Although a lot of documents have been placed on record in support of claim and counterclaim, but petition can be disposed of on a short point that the orders under challenge were passed without impleading the petitioner as respondent in the said proceedings.
3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner company had purchased a land from Gopal Singh and Betal Singh vide registered sale deeds dated 12.1.2006. Thereafter, the land in question was diverted for non-agricultural purposes by order dated 30.11.2006. The petitioner thereafter obtained NOC from Nazul Department in respect of 30000 sqft. of land. Petitioner applied before the Town and Country Planning Department seeking sanction for construction of housing project comprising of duplex and multistorey buildings. It is the case of the petitioner that after obtaining all necessary permissions from different departments, the petitioner company was granted permission for construction of buildings vide letter dated 9.2.2007. The petitioner thereafter started construction of housing project, namely, Gul Mohar City and independent houses and flats were constructed over the land in question. Various independent houses and flats have been sold to various buyers. As the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the State authorities alleging that he has encroached upon the Government land, therefore, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 18765/2010 before the Principal Seat at Jabalpur because the Vacation Bench was not available at Gwalior. By order dated 23.12.2010 the Government functionaries were directed that the proceedings may continue, but no coercive step be taken against the petitioner without the leave of the Court. In the meanwhile, the completion certificate was also issued by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. The Writ Petition, so filed by the petitioner before the Principal Seat of this Court, was transferred to the Gwalior Bench and by order dated 13.5.2011 the petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and the order dated 24.10.2010 was quashed with a direction to petitioner to file comprehensive representation before the respondents and the respondents in their turn, were directed to decide the said representation upon giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was further directed that in case any adverse order is passed, then the same shall not be given effect to for a period of seven days. Thereafter, on 25.5.2011 the Tahsildar, Nazul, Gwalior held that the petitioner has encroached upon the Nazul Forest land comprising of survey Nos. 18, 22 and 30 and he was directed to be evicted after expiry of seven days. Being aggrieved by the decision taken by the Tahsildar, the petitioner filed a writ petition, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 3504/2011 and the said writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 16.11.2011 and it was held that the land in question belongs to the company. Thereafter, a Review Petition No. 306/2011 was filed by the State of MP, which was also dismissed by this Court by order dated 9.12.2011. The State of MP being aggrieved by the order of the Writ Court as well as the Review Court, filed SLP before the apex Court and notices were issued and the parties were directed to maintain status quo.
4. It is submitted that thereafter in the month of November, 2014, respondent No. 6-Balbeer Singh filed an application before the Tahsildar Gwalior for correction of the revenue entries. It was
SupremeToday
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.