Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J. K. Maheshwari, J.
Tariq Mohd. Khan and others v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 21047 of 2017 (Jabalpur); Decided on 6.12.2017.
Ms. Shobha Menon with Ms. Smriti Sinha for petitioners;
Pushpendra Yadav, Dy. Advocate General for respondents/State;
Piyush Bhatnagar for respondent/Municipal Corporation, Bhopal.
Headnote: Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 129 & uxjikfyd fuxe }kjk lM+d dk fuekZ.k & ;kph dh Hkwfe izHkkfor & mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'k ij lhekadu fd;k x;k & lhekadu izfrosnu mPp U;k;ky; ds funs'k ds vuqlkj vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk gLrk{kfjr ugha & lhekadu ls iwoZ cVkadu ugha fd;k x;k vkSj Hkw& [kaM uD'ks ij fofufnZ"V ugha fd;k x;k & ,slk lhekadu izfrosnu [kkfjt fd;k x;k & funsf'kr fd;k x;k fd cVkadu u fd;k x;k gks rks fd;k tk, & jktLo uD'ks ds lkFk&lkFk orZeku uD'ks ij Hkw&[kaM fofufnZ"V fd;k tk, & rRi'pkr~ lhekadu izfrosnu esa Li"V fd;k tk, fd ;kph dh Hkwfe dgk¡ fLFkr gS vkSj og lM+d dk Hkkx gS ;k ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;fn bl U;k;ky; ds funs'k ds v/khu dksbZ lhekadu fd;k tkrk gS rc jktLo izkf/kdkjh fofufnZ"V Hkwfe vFkkZr~ 4150 oxZ xt dks cVkadu Øekad fn, fcuk lhekadu ugha dj ldrsA blds vfrfjDr] Hkw&[kaM fofufnZ"V fd;k tkuk pkfg, D;ksafd ;kfpdk esa fd, x, nkos ds vuqlkj ;fn mi;qZDr Hkw&[kaM ij lM+d dk fuekZ.k fd;k tkrk gS rks izfrdj dk vo/kkj.k fd;k tkuk gksxk] fdarq izfrosnu esa mi;qZDr fofunsZ'k miyH; ugha gSA ¼iSjk 3
Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S.129 -- construction of road by Municipal Corporation -- land of petitioner affected -- demarcation made on direction of High Court -- demarcation report not signed by officers as directed by High Court -- prior to demarcation, Batankan not done and piece of land not specified on map -- such demarcation report rejected -- it is directed that if Batankan has not been done, it be done -- piece of land be specified on revenue map as well as existing map -- thereafter it be clarified in demarcation report as to where land of petitioner is situated and whether same is part of road or not.
Held : under the directions of this Court if any Simankan is done then the revenue officers cannot demarcate the land without having Batankan number on the specified land i.e. 4150 sq. yard. In addition, the piece of land must be specified because as per the claim made in the petition if the construction of the road is done on the said piece of land, the compensation is to be determined, but the said specification is not available in the report.
1. This petition has been filed challenging demarcation report submitted by the respondents-State in furtherance to the order dated 11.4.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 16555/2011.
2. The claim of the petitioner in the said petition was that for a part of Khasra No. 1413 the civil Court granted a decree to the extent of 4150 sq. yard of land in their favour, however, the construction of the road made on the said piece of land, without acquisition of the land is illegal. Initially stay was granted in the said case by this Court to not to construct the road on the said piece of land, but, on 11.4.2017, the said stay order was modified directing for demarcation of the said piece of land i.e. 4150 sq. yard of Kh. No. 1413. Thereafter, a report has been submitted by the respondents, which has been challenged in this petition on the ground that the officers as specified in the order dated 11.4.2017 were not present on the spot. More so, it is not specified in the report that as to where the said piece of land i.e. 4150 sq. yard is situated in Kh. No. 1413. In absence thereto, making demarcation is of no avail except to say before the Court that 4150 sq. yard of land to which the decree has been granted in favour of the petitioners has not been taken by the respondent Corporation/Government.
3. After having heard learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the report it is apparent that as directed by this Court all the officers have not signed the report. More so, the report does not specify as to where 4150 sq. yard of land is situated in the Khasra No. 1413. Prior to demarcating the land, it was the duty of the revenue officers to ascertain as to how much acres or square meters of land is in Khasra No. 1413 and after the decree of the civil Court in favour of the petitioners to the extent of 4150 sq. yard any Batankan was done of the said Khasra separating the land of petitioners prior to demarcation. The report indicates that no documents have been produced by the petitioners regarding Batankan. Suppose those documents were not produced and under the directions of this Court if any Simankan is done then the revenue officers cannot demarcate the land without having Batankan number on the specified land i.e. 4150 sq. yard. In addition, the piece of land must be specified because as per the claim made in the petition if the construction of the road is done on the said piece of land, the compensation is to be determined, but the said specification is not available in the report. In such circumstances, in my considered opinion, the report as submitted by the respondents is hereby rejected with a direction to again demarcate the land as directed in Writ Petition No. 16555/2011 on 11.4.2017. In addition to the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 16555/2011, it is further directed that in pursuance to the order of decree passed by the civil Court if any Batankan has not been done, it be done and the said piece of land be specified on the revenue map as well as on the existing map of the said area certified by the City Planner and thereafter in the demarcation report it be clarified as to where the land of the petitioner is situated and whether the same is the part of road or not ? With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.
4. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of Writ Petition No. 16555/2011.
