Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul and Anil Verma, JJ.
Badri Prasad Tiwari v. State of M.P. & others
Writ Appeal No. 1081 of 2020 (Indore): against the order dated 22.10.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 8013/2020;
Decided on 29.9.2021
¼1½ yksd U;kl vf/kfu;e] 1951 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½] 5] 6 rFkk 28 &&ßU;k;ky;Þ && vfHkizsr && yksdU;kl dk jftLVªkj &&ßU;k;ky;Þ ugha && /kkjk 28 ds v/khu nLrkost e¡xkus vkfn dh 'kfDr jftLVªkj }kjk tk¡p fd, tkus ds iz;kstu ds fy, nh xbZ gS && tk¡p /kkjk 5 esa mfYyf[kr fcanqvksa rd lhfer gks ldrh gS && jftLVªkj dks vius fo"k;ksa ds e/; fooknksa dk fofu'p;u djus dh dksbZ 'kfDr ugha] pkgs og thou] Lora=rk ;k laifÙk ls lacaf/kr vf/kdkj gksa && jftLVªkj dks vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ßU;k;ky;Þ ds :i esa dk;Z djus ds fy, dksbZ laizHkq 'kfä ugha nh xbZ gSA 1969 ,e ih ,y ts 680 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 18 ls 21
¼2½ yksdU;kl vf/kfu;e] 1951 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 26 rFkk 28 && fuoZpu
&& yksdU;kl dk jftLVªkj U;k;fu.kZ;u ds fy, ekeys dks flfoy U;k;ky; fufnZ"V dj ldrk gS && dkuwu dh Hkk"kk lknk] ljy vkSj vlafnX/k && ifj.kkeksa dh ijokg fd, fcuk izHkko fn;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 17] 20 ,oa 28
¼3½ fof/k dk fuoZpu &&fl)kar && fof/k esa fdlh dk;Z dks fof'k"V jhfr esa fd;k tkuk fofgr && mls mlh jhfr esa fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && lkeF;Zdkjh micaèk ds vHkko esa vU; dksbZ Hkh izkf/kdkjh ml 'kfDr dks gM+i ugha ldrkA ¼iSjk 28
¼4½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½
&& /kkjk 2¼1½ && fjV vihy pykus ;ksX; gksuk && yksdU;kl ds jftLVªkj ds vkns'k ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk && lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu 'kfDr iz;qDr dj [kkfjt dh xbZ && jftLVªkj ßU;k;ky;Þ ugha gksrk && mlds vkns'k ds fo#) lafoèkku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr djus dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk && fjV vihy pykus ;ksX;A ¼2015½5 ,l lh lh 428] ¼2006½7 ,l lh lh 496] ¼2015½9 ,l lh lh1] ¼2003½4 ,l lh lh 739] ¼1984½4 ,l lh lh 10] ¼2005½6 ,l lh lh 776] 1976 jk-fu- 146 ¾ ts ,y ts 278] 2000 jk-fu- 141 ¼mPpre U;k-½] , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 185] , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 128] ¼2008½14 ,l lh lh 58] 2014¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts 308] 2017 ¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 109] fjV vihy Ø- 385 lu~ 2017 fu.khZr fnukad 14&9&2017 rFkk fjV vihy Ø- 105 lu~ 2009 fu.khZr fnukad 13&1&2020 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 27] 22 ,oa 23
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq& 226 && vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk dk otZu && yksdU;kl ds jftLVªkj@mi[kaM vf/kdkjh rFkk rglhynkj }kjk vfèkØe.k gVkus ds vkf{kIr vkns'k ikfjr && vf/kdkfjrk dk ewyHkwr vHkko && ,sls vkns'kksa ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk pykus ;ksX; && vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk dk otZu ughaA ¼iSjk 24 ,oa 25
¼6½ U;k;ky;&&Uk;ky;@eap pquus dk vf/kdkj&vk{ksfir vkns'k yksdU;kl ds jftLVªkj@mi[kaM vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr &dfri eqdnescktksa }kjk flfoy okn izLrqr dj vk{ksfir fd;k x;k && ;kph us vf/kdkfjrk dh ewyHkwr deh rFkk fofèk esa }s"k ds vk/kkj ij fjV ;kfpdk esa vk{ksfir fd;k && ;kfpdk pykus ;ksX; && dsoy bl vk/kkj ij fd dfri; eqdnescktksa us mlh vkns'k ds fo#) flfoy okn izLrqr fd;k] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd fjV ;kfpdk pykus ;ksX; ugha Fkh && ,d ls vf/kd eap miyC/k gksus ij eqdnesckt leqfpr eap dk p;u dj ldrk gSA¼iSjk 24 ,oa 25
¼7½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 250 && vf/kdkfjrk && ewy vfèkdkfjrk rglhynkj esa fufgr && rglhynkj vf/kØe.k gVkus ds fy, leqfpr dk;Zokgh dj ldrk gS && yksdU;kl ds jftLVªkj esa ,slh 'kfDr fufgr ugha && fofèk esa fdlh dk;Z dks fof'k"V jhfr esa fd;k tkuk fofgr && mls mlh jhfr esa fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && lkeF;Zdkjh dkuwuh mica/k ds vHkko esa yksdU;kl dk jftLVªkj ml 'kfDr dks gM+i ugha ldrk A ¼2010½11 ,l lh lh 557 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 28
¼8½ iz'kklfud fof/k && dkuwuh 'kfDr dk iz;ksx && inØe esa mPp dksbZ izkfèkdkjh vFkok vihyh; iqujh{k.k izkf/kdkjh Hkh ewy dkuwuh izkf/kdkjh dh 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djus ds fy, l'kDr ugha gksrk &&ofj"B izkf/kdkjh ewy l{ke izkfèkdkjh dks fdlh fo'ks"k jhfr ls dk;Z djus dk funs'k ugha ns ldrk && mPp izkf/kdkjh dk ,slk dksbZ Hkh vkns'k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ikfjr vkns'k ugha ekuk tk ldrkA¼iSjk 28
¼9½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½ && 'kfDr dh O;kfIr && yksdU;kl ds jftLVªkj dk vkns'k vfèkdkfjrk ds ewyHkwr vHkko ls xzLr && ,slk vkns'k fjV U;k;ky; }kjk fLFkj j[kk x;k &&fjV U;k;ky; dk vkns'k xyr /kkj.kk ij vk/kkfjr && U;kf;d laoh{kk ugha >sy ldrk &&fjV U;k;ky; dk vkns'k] jftLVªkj dk vkns'k ,oa rglhynkj dk ikfj.kkfed vkns'k vikLr && fjV vihy eatwjA ¼iSjk 27 ,oa 29
(1) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- Ss.2(1), 26 and 28 -- “Court” -- meaning -- Registerar of Public Trusts -- not “Court” -- power given under section 28 to summon document etc. for purpose of conducting enquiry by Registrar -- enquiry can be limited to points mentioned in section 5 -- Registrar does not have any power to decide controverises between its subject whether rights relate to life, liberty or property -- no sovereign power given to Registrar under Act to act as “Court”.1969 MPLJ 680 referred to. [Paras 18 to 21
(2) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.)-- Ss.26 and 28 -- interpretation -- Registrar, Public Trusts can refer matter for adjudication to civil Court -- language of statute plain, simple and unambiguous -- has to be given effect irrespective of consequences. [Paras 17, 20 & 28
(3) Interpretation of Statute-- principle -- law prescribes athing to be done in particular manner -- it has to be done in same manner -- no other authority may usurp that power in absence of enabling provision. [Para 28
(4) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M. P.) -- S.2(1) -- maintainability of writ appeal -- writ petition against order of Registrar, Public Trusts -- dismissed by exercising power under Article 227 of Constitution -- Registrar is not “Court” -- therefore question of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution against its order does not arise -- writ appeal maintainable. (2015)5 SCC 423, (2006)7 SCC 496, (2015)9 SCC??, (2003)4 SCC 739, (1984)4 SCC 10, (2005)6 SCC 776, 1976 RN 146= JLJ 278, 2000 RN 185, 2000 RN 141(SC), AIR 1992 SC 185, AIR 1998 SC 128, (2008)14 SCC 58,2017 (4) MPLJ 109, Writ Appeal No. 385 of 2017 decided on 14.9.2017 and Writ Appeal No. 105 of 2009 decided on 13.1.2020 referred to. [Paras17, 22 & 23
(5) Constitution of India-- Art. 226 -- bar of availability of alternative remedy -- impugned orders passed by Registrar, Public Trusts/SDO and Tahsildar for removal of encroachment -- inherent lack of juridiction -- writ petition against such orders maintainable -- no bar of availability of alternative remedy. [Paras 24 & 25
(6) Court-- right to choose Court/forum -- impugned order passed by Registrar, Public Trusts/SDO -- challenged by certain litigants by filing civil suit -- petitioner challenged in writ petition on ground of inherent lack of jurisdiction and malice of law -- petition maintainable -- merely on ground that certain litigants filed civil suit against same order, it cannot be said that writ petition was not maintainable -- litigant can choose appropriate forum when more than one forum available. [Paras 24 & 25
(7) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.)-- S.250 -- jurisdiction -- original jurisdiction vested with Tahsildar -- Tahsildar can take appropriate action to remove encroachment -- no such power vested with Registrar, Public Trusts -- if law prescribes a thing to be done in particular manner -- it has to be done in same manner -- Registrar, Public Trusts cannot usurp that power in absence of enabling statutory provision. (2010)11 SCC 557 followed. [Para 28
(8) Administrative Law-- exercise of statutory power -- no authority higher in hierarchy or even appellate or revisional authority is empowered to exercise power of original statutory authority -- superior authority cannot direct original competent authority to act in particular manner -- any such order of higher authority cannot be treated to be order passed under Act. [Para 28
(9) Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M. P.)--S.2(1) -- scope of power -- order of Registrar, Public Trusts suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction --such order sustained by writ Court -- order of writ Court based on wrong premise -- cannot sustain judicial scrutiny -- order of writ Court, order of Registrar and consequential order of Tahsildar set aside -- writ appeal allowed. [Paras 27 & 29
ORDER
Paul, J. -- 1. In this Writ Appeal filed .u/S.2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant assails the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 22.10.2020 passed in WP No.8013/2020 whereby the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts as projected by the appellant are that in the year 1971 the respondent No.2 Trust was registered under the M.P. Trust Act, 1951 (for short “Trust Act”). The trust owned land comprised in Survey No.95 area 8.5 hectare. In the year 1976, six bighas of land belonging to the Trust was acquired by the State for Scheme No.32 of Town Improvement Trust (TIT) Ratlam. Further, 24 bighas of land of the Trust was acquired for Scheme No.55 of Ratlam Municipal Corporation in the year 1991. One Suresh Gurjar was elected as President of the Trust in the year 1995. On 14.8.2001, the Registrar Public Trust granted permission to respondent No.2 to sell 1.800 hectare (nine bighas) of land to the present appellant. Accordingly, through a registered sale deed dated 30.8.2001 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner got 1.800 hectare land out of Survey No.95.
3. A Civil suit was filed by the trust through the then President challenging the said sale deed of petitioner on 2.8.2006. This Civil Suit bearing number 56A/14 (re-numbered) was dismissed by civil Court by passing a judgment and decree Annexure P/4. First Appeal No.10/2017 was filed by the Trust against the said judgment. The interim application filed in the First Appeal was dismissed on 22.11.2017 (Annexure P/6). It was observed that the Trust unsuccessfully assailed the sale deeds in Civil Suit No.32-A/2002, 42 -A/2002 and 89-A/2004 and said suits were dismissed, therefore, no case was made out for grant of temporary injunction. It is averred that the name of petitioner was recorded in the revenue records on 1.800 hectare in revenue Case No.15/A-3/2001-2002. This document is filed along with IA No.2628/2020.
4. Shri Amit S Agrawal, learned Sr.Counsel for appellant by taking this Court to IA No.989/2021 submits that the respondent No.2 Trust by preferring an application dated 16.10.2019 before the Registrar, Public Trust prayed for removal of encroachments. In the matter, the Registrar/Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) Ratlam City by notice dated 16.10.2019 directed the Revenue Inspector (RI) Ratlam to submit a status report. The Revenue Inspector by report dated 21.10.2019 opined that after demarcation of Survey No.95/1 and 95/2 only the position of land would be clear. Resultantly, the SDO, Ratlam by order dated 22.10.2019 directed the Trust to undertake the exercise of demarcation. The Trust preferred such application seeking declaration. After the said exercise, a report was prepared by Superintendent, Land Revenue, Ratlam dated 24.1.2020 and said authority opined that at present correct boundaries of Survey No.95/1 cannot be determined. Shri Agrawal placed reliance on following para of this report:-
ß;g fd losZ u- 95@2 dk LohÑr cVkdau QnZ foØ; foys[k prqFkZ lhek ls fHkUu LFkku ij gksdj rRdkfyu veys }kjk ewy losZ ua95 ds nwljs LFkku ij cVkadu QnZ izLrkfor dj Lohd`r fd;k x;k tks lhekadu fnukad rd ogh vkd`fr vfLrro esa gSA tcfd 95@2 ds Lohd`r ysvkmV vuqlkj Hkw&[k.M foØ; gksuk crk;k x;k gSA LFky ij losZ ua- 95@2 o 95@3 dk Lohd`r cVkadu vuqlkj lhekadu djus ij dCts dh fLFkfr cny tkrh gSA LFky ij mifLFkr mHk; i{kksa o iapku dks bl fLFkfr ls voxr djk;k x;kA losZ uEcj 95@2 dk LohÑr cVkadu jftLVªh dh prqFkZ lhek o dCtk LFkku ls nwljs LFkku ij Lohd`r gksus ls lhekdau =qfViw.kZ gksdj fookn dh fLFkfr fufeZr gksuk ikbZ xbZA ,slh fLFkfr esa losZ u-a 95@1] 95@2 ,oa 95@3 dh lhekdau dk;Zokgh iw.kZ ugh gks ikbZA losZ ua 95@1 dh vkd`fr =qfV iw.kZ cVkadu Lohd`r gksus ls mldh lhekvksa dks Hkh rF;kRed lgh fcanqvks ij ugh crk;k tk ldrk gSA^^
5. After perusal of the said report, the SDO, Ratlam by order dated 9.1.2020 opined that no further proceedings are required and mat
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Sub Divisional Officer, acting as Registrar, must have a specific delegation of powers in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Public Tru....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registrar exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling the entire order and exercising the power provided under Section 26 of the Act, which was....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of the previous sanction of the Registrar for any sale, mortgage, exchange, or gift of immovable property belonging to a public tru....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a person interested in a Public Trust to challenge the finding of the Registrar and the necessity of a notice under Section 80 ....
The registrar's refusal to grant permission for trust property sale must be supported by evidence of prejudice to public interest; arbitrary denials are against statutory provisions.
The Public Trust must be impleaded in appeals concerning its registration to ensure proper adjudication of disputes.
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
