Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia and Roopesh Chandra Varshney, JJ.
Mohandas Chela Amardas Mahant, Narsingh Tila, Datia v. State of M.P. & Others
Writ Appeal No. 1119 of 2022 and 1120 of 2022 (Gwalior): against the orders dated 23.8.2022 passed in Writ Petitions No. 7667/2010 and 4120/2010; Decided on 12.7.2024
¼1½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & dkj.k crkv¨ lwpuk d¢ fo#) fjV ;kfpdk & pyus ;¨X; g¨uk & ;kph }kjk dkj.k crkv¨ lwpuk dk mŸkj fn;k x;k & lquokà dk leqfpr volj çnku fd, fcuk çR;FkÊ Øekad 6 }kjk vafre vkns'k ikfjr & vk{ksfir vkns'k uSlfxZd U;k; d¢ fl)kar d¢ vfrØe.k esa ikfjr fd;k x;k & fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;¨X; gSA ¼iSjk 6½
¼2½ uSlfxZd U;k; & ljdkjh Òwfe ij nqdkuksa ds fuekZ.k d¢ lacaèk esa dkj.k crkv¨ lwpuk & mŸkj fn;k x;k fd nqdkusa eafnj dh Òwfe ij fufeZr dh xà gSa] ljdkjh Òwfe ij ugha & lquokà dk leqfpr volj fn, fcuk rFkk ;kph dh mifLFkfr esa d¨Ã losZ{k.k ;k LFky fujh{k.k fd, fcuk] vafre vkns'k ikfjr & ,slk vkns'k uSlfxZd U;k; d¢ fl)kar d¢ vfrØe.k esa gS & fofèk dh n`f"V esa fLFkj j[kus ;¨X; ugha rFkk vkjaHk ls 'kwU; gSA ¼iSjk 6½
¼3½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 248 & fofèk dh lE;d~ çfØ;k dk vuqlj.k fd, fcuk nqdkusa rksM+uk & ljdkjh Òwfe ij nqdkuksa ds fuekZ.k d¢ lacaèk esa dkj.k crkv¨ lwpuk & egar d¢ psys }kjk mŸkj fn;k x;k fd nqdkusa eafnj dh Òwfe ij fufeZr dh xà gSa & dkj.k crkv¨ lwpuk d¢ fo#) fjV ;kfpdk çLrqr] ftlesa j¨d vkns'k fn;k x;k & lquokà dk leqfpr volj fn, fcuk rFkk ;kph dh mifLFkfr esa d¨Ã losZ{k.k ;k LFky fujh{k.k fd, fcuk] vafre vkns'k ikfjr rFkk nqdkusa rksM+ nh xà & vafre vkns'k d¢ fo#) Òh fjV ;kfpdk çLrqr dh xà & n¨u¨a ;kfpdkv¨a esa j¨d vkns'k ikfjr & vafre vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk & ;fn ;g ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS rks fofèk dh n`f"V esa og ukfLr gS & çR;FkÊ Øekad 6 }kjk uSlfxZd U;k; d¢ fl)kar d¢ vfrØe.k esa ikfjr ,slk vkns'k & fofèk dh n`f"V esa fLFkj j[kus ;¨X; ugha rFkk vkjaHk ls 'kwU; gS & vikLr fd;k x;k & ;kph d¢ i{k esa çfrdj vfèkfu.kÊrA
vfÒfuèkkZfjr% ;kph ml dkj.k crkv¨ lwpuk ij vk{ksi djrs gq, bl U;k;ky; esa vk;k] ftlesa ;kph d¨ n¨u¨a fjV ;kfpdkv¨a esa j¨d vkns'k fn;k x;k gSA vr% çR;fFkZ;¨a d¨ vafre vkns'k ikfjr ugha djuk pkfg, Fkk v©j ;fn og ikfjr fd;k x;k gS rc Òh og fofèk dh n`f"V esa ukfLr gS v©j ;kph d¨ ;kfpdk esa la'k¨èku d¢ ekè;e ls mls vk{ksfir djus dh vko';drk ugha FkhA blfy, fjV U;k;ky; us bl vkèkkj ij ;kfpdk d¨ xyr [kkfjt fd;k gS fd ;kph us vihy d¢ ekè;e ls vkns'k d¨ vk{ksfir ugha fd;kA tc vk{ksfir vkns'k ç'kklfud çkfèkdkjh ;k vèkZ&Ukf;d çkfèkdkjh }kjk uSlfxZd U;k; d¢ fl)kar dk vfrØe.k djrs gq, ikfjr fd, x, rks fjV ;kfpdk,a iw.kZr% pyus ;¨X; gSaA vr% tSlh Åij foospuk dh xà gS] çfroknh Øekad 6 }kjk vafre vkns'k fnukad 16-7-2010 ;kph d¨ lquokà dk leqfpr volj çnku fd, fcuk v©j ;kph dh mifLFkfr esa d¨Ã losZ{k.k ;k LFky fujh{k.k fd, fcuk ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA blfy, ;g vkns'k fnukad 16-7-2010 fofèk dh n`f"V ls fLFkj j[kus ;¨X; ugha gS v©j vkjaHk ls 'kwU; gSA ¼iSjk 6½
D;ksafd vc nqdku¨a d¨] Åij vfHkfuèkkZfjr fd, x, vuqlkj] voSèk :i ls rksM+ fn;k x;k gS] blfy, ;kph jkT;@çR;fFkZ;¨a ls #i;s 2]00]000@& ¼#i, n¨ yk[k½ dk çfrdj çkIr djus dk gdnkj g¨xkA çR;FkÊx.k d¨ funsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os n¨u¨a Òwfe;¨a dk losZ{k.k eŒçŒ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 d¢ micaèk¨a d¢ vèkhu l{ke çkfèkdkjh }kjk djk,a v©j ;fn ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd ;kph dh Òwfe lM+d p©M+hdj.k d¢ fuekZ.k d¢ fy, ys yh xà Fkh] r¨ ;kph d¨ i;kZIr çfrdj lanŸk fd;k tk,A voSèk foèoal d¢ dkj.k mUgsa gq, uqdlku d¢ fy, ;kphx.k vFkok nqdku ij fdjk,nkj ;k vuqKfIrèkkjh d¢ :i esa dkfct O;fä çR;fFkZ;¨a ls çfrdj ysus d¢ fy, Lora= g¨axsA 2014 jkfu 451 ¼mPp U;k;ky;&[kaM U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 9½
¼4½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & ;kfpdk dk vfèkdkj & eafnj dh Òwfe d¢ lacaèk esa fookn & eafnj d¢ egar d¢ psys }kjk fjV ;kfpdk çLrqr & mŸkj esa lqus tkus ds vfèkdkj d¢ fo"k; esa d¨Ã vkifÙk ugha dh xà & psyk egar dk mÙkjkfèkdkjh gS & mls fjV ;kfpdk çLrqr djus dk vfèkdkj gS & eafnj dh v¨j ls ;kph us fjV ;kfpdk lgh çLrqr dh gSA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 310 lu~ 2004 fu.kÊr fnukad 20-8-2009 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 7½
¼5½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB d¨ vihy½ vfèkfu;e] 2005 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 2¼1½ & 'kfä;¨a dh O;kfIr & lqus tkus ds vfèkdkj d¢ vkèkkj ij fjV ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh xà & mŸkj esa lqus tkus ds vfèkdkj d¢ fo"k; esa dÒh vkifÙk ugha dh xà & ;kph us eafnj dh laifÙk d¢ laj{k.k d¢ fy, eafnj dh v¨j ls fjV ;kfpdk lgh çLrqr dh & fjV U;k;ky; us rduhdh vkèkkj ij fjV ;kfpdk xyr [kkfjt dh & fjV vihysa eatwjA ¼iSjk 7 ,oa 10½
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- writ petition against show cause notice -- maintainability -- show cause notice replied by petitioner -- final order passed by respondent No. 6 without providing proper opportunity of hearing -- impugned order passed in violation of principle of natural justice -- writ petition is maintainable. [Para 6]
(2) Natural Justice -- show cause notice regarding construction of shops on government land -- reply filed that shops are constructed on land of temple and not on government land -- final order passed without providing proper opportunity of hearing, without any survey or spot inspection in presence of petitioner -- such order is in violation of principle of natural justice -- is unsustainable in law and void ab initio. [Para 6]
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 248 -- demolishing shops without following due process of law -- show cause notice regarding construction of shops on government land -- reply filed by chela of Mahant that shops are constructed on land of temple -- writ petition filed against show cause notice, in which stay granted -- without giving opportunity of hearing and without conducting survey or spot inspection in presence of petitioner, final order passed and shops demolished -- writ petition against final order also filed -- stay order passed in both petitions -- final order ought not to have been passed -- if passed, it is non est in eye of law -- such impugned order passed by respondent No. 6 in violation of principle of natural justice -- is unsustainable in law and void ab initio -- set aside -- compensation awarded in favour of petitioner.
Held: The petitioner approached this Court challenging the very show cause notice, in which the stay has been granted to the petitioner in both the writ petitions, therefore, the respondents ought not to have passed the final order and even if it is passed, that is non-est in the eye of law and the petitioner was not required to challenge the same by way of amendment in the petition. Therefore, the writ court has wrongly dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not challenge the order by way of appeal. The writ petitions are very much maintainable when the impugned orders were passed by the administrative authority or quasi-judicial authority in violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, as discussed above, the final order dt. 16.7.2010 was passed by respondent No. 6 without giving the proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting any survey or spot inspection in the presence of the petitioner. Therefore, this final order dated 16.7.2010 is unsustainable in law and void ab initio. [Para 6]
Since now the shops have been demolished illegally, as held above, therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac) from the State/respondents. The respondents are directed to survey both the lands by the competent authority under the provisions of M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and if it is found that the land belonging to the petitioner had been taken for construction of the road widening, then an adequate amount of compensation be paid to the petitioner. The petitioners or the persons in possession of the shop as tenants or licencees shall be at liberty to claim compensation from the respondents for the loss caused to them because of illegal demolition. 2014 RN 451 (HC-DB) relied on. [Para 9]
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- right to petition -- dispute regarding land of temple -- writ petition filed by chela of Mahant of temple -- objection about locus not taken in reply -- chela is successor of Mahant -- he has right to file petition -- petitioner has rightly filed petition on behalf of temple. Writ Petition No. 310 of 2004 decided on 20.8.2009 relied on. [Para 7]
(5) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 -- S. 2 (1) -- scope of powers -- writ petition dismissed on ground of locus -- objection about locus never raised in reply -- petitioner has rightly filed petition on behalf of temple to protect property of temple -- writ Court wrongly dismissed petition on technical ground -- writ appeals allowed. [Paras 7 & 10]
ORDER
Per : Vivek Rusia, J:--
1. Appellant/Petitioner has filed W.A.No.1119/2022 challenging the order dt.23.8.20222, whereby the learned Writ Court dismissed Writ Petition No.7667/2010. Appellant/Petitioner has also filed W.A.No.1120/2022 challenging the order dt.23.8.2022, whereby the learned Writ Court dismissed Writ Petition No.4120/2010.
2. The controversy involved in both the appeals is the same, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from W.A.No.1120/2022, which are as under :-.
(i) The appellant/petitioner approached this Court by Writ Petition claiming himself to be the owner and in possession of temple and nearby land of survey No.2613 at Datia being a disciple (chela) of Mahant Amardas of Shri Narsingh Temple. The petitioner was served with a notice dt.9.7.2010 by SDO - Additional Tahsildar PWD, Datia alleging that he has encroached upon the government land bearing survey No.2255 and sought explanation from him till 16.07.2010. The petitioner appeared and submitted a detailed reply that there is no encroachment on Survey No.2255, whereas the petitioner constructed the shop as per the permission of Survey No.2613. Respondent No.6 fixed the date for further appearance on 28.7.2010. However, without concluding the proceeding initiated under section 248 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the Code), the respondents demolished 14 shops on 18th July 2010, which resulted in the loss of Rs.40 lac to the petitioner as well as to the occupants of the shops.
(ii) According to the appellant, Mahant Amardas was the exclusive owner of Shri Narsingh Temple and the property attached to the temple situated on Survey No.2613 area of 0.129 hectares. After the death of Mahant Amardas, he became a successor under the 'Guru Parampara' System. This Court had already held in his favour that he is the true successor of Mahant Das and therefore there is no dispute in respect of the locus of the petitioner in filing this present petition.
(iii) After notice in the writ petition, respondents/State filed the reply reiterating that the appellant/petitioner constructed the shops on an area of 172.12 sq. mtr. of Survey No.2255 total area of 0.566 hectares. Therefore, the notice was issued under section 248 of the Code. The SDO PWD has been delegated with the power of Tahsildar vide gazette notification published on 26.5.1975. After conducting the survey, the aforesaid encroachment has been found proved and accordingly, the shops have been demolished. However, along with the return, the respondents did not file any document to substantiate that the proceedings which were initiated under section 248 of the Code were concluded after surveying in the presence of the appellant/petitioner. Along with the return, the respondents filed a final order dt.16.7.2010 passing the final order of eviction along with which a fine of Rs.1,000/- was also imposed.
(iv) Vide order dt.23.8.2022, Writ Court dismissed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has not challenged the final order dt.16.7.2010 and deity is the owner of Survey No.2613 and the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition before this court. However, liberty has been granted to the deity to challenge the final order dt.16.7.2010 through its next friend.
(v) Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.1120/2022. Vide a non-speaking order dated 22.9.2022, the Writ Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner approached the apex Court by way of SLP (C) No.5374/2023. Vide order dt.15.04.2024, the SLP was allowed and the writ appeal was directed to be decided on merits in accordance with law.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.
4. The core issue in both these appeals is whether the action of the respondents in demolishing the shops without f
The court established that administrative actions affecting property rights must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing.
Protected tenants cannot be evicted without due process and adherence to principles of natural justice, as established under the J&K Tenancy Act.
Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate land title disputes; such matters must be resolved by Civil Courts under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886.
Authority must avoid unjust cancellation of property rights without valid reasons, emphasizing the necessity for resolution of title disputes in civil courts as mandated by law.
Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes, requiring resolution in civil court; decisions must include sufficient reasoning to uphold property rights.
The court affirmed the authority's power to issue demolition orders on unauthorized constructions when ownership and permissions are not clearly established.
Temple lands' unauthorized use by government without S.34 permission mandates compensation despite long delay, proven by ryotwari patta.
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
