Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 886
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Deepak Khot, J.
Chunnilal Brahmin v. State of M.P.
Miscellaneous Petition No. 3745 of 2025 (Jabalpur): against the order dated 26.6.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in Case No. 0321/Appeal/2024-25; Decided on 19.8.2025.
Amit Kumar Bajpai for petitioner; Mukund Agrawal, Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Headnote:
jktLo iqLrd ifji= Òkx pkj&3 ¼eŒçŒ½ & dafMdk 20 & Òwfe dk fofue; & ;kph d¢ firk us ljdkjh fo|ky; fuekZ.k d¢ fy, viuh Òwfe dk vH;iZ.k fd;k & fofue; esa ljdkjh Òwfe dk dCtk fn;k x;k & ;kph us dysDVj d¢ le{k fofue; d¢ fy, vkosnu çLrqr fd;k & og [kkfjt fd;k x;k & vk;qä }kjk vihy Òh [kkfjt dh xà & ;kph dk vius firk d¢ le; ls dCtk gS & dysDVj d¨ çfrdj nsus ;k fofue; djus ij fopkj djuk pkfg, Fkk & dysDVj rFkk vk;qä d¢ vkns'k vikLr & çfrdj ij ;k fQj Òwfe dk vfèkdkj çnku djus ij fopkj fd, tkus d¢ fy, ekeyk dysDVj d¨ çfrçsf"krA ¼iSjk 6 ,oa 7½
Revenue Book Circular Part Four-3 (M.P.) -- Kandika 20 -- exchange of land -- father of petitioner surrendered his land for construction of Government School -- in exchange, possession of Government land given -- petitioner filed application for exchange before Collector -- same dismissed -- appeal also dismissed by Commissioner -- petitioner is in possession since his father's time -- Collector ought to have considered grant of compensation or exchange -- orders of Collector and Commissioner set aside -- matter remanded to Collector for consideration, either for compensation or grant of rights of land. [Paras 6 & 7]
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 26.6.2025 (Annexure P/12) passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in Case No. 0321/Appeal/2024-25, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code has been dismissed and the order passed by the Collector dated 22.2.2011 (Annexure P/9) in Case No.716/A19/2009-10 has been affirmed.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner namely, Pattu Bramhin had surrendered his land for the construction of government school in the Village Kishanpur, District Panna bearing Kh. Nos. 235 and 236. It has been further submitted that in exchange of the said land, the petitioner's father was given possession of the land bearing Survey No. 127/1 of the same Village. The father had taken possession and he was continued in possession till his death and after his death, the petitioner being his legal representative has been in possession of the said land. It is further submitted that an application has been filed by the petitioner for declaring him as a Bhumi Swami of the land-Survey No. 127/1 admeasuring area 1.82 hectare of the said village, wherein he has been in possession after the death of his father. The said application was endorsed and sent for comments and report to the revenue authorities by the Collector vide Annexure P/3. On the said direction, the report was prepared by the Tehsildar vide Annexure P/6 by which the matter was recommended for exchange of the land with observation that the petitioner has been in possession of the government land in lieu of the land, which has been surrendered by his father for the construction of government school. The said report has been endorsed by the SDO vide Annexure P/7 dated 29.1.2007.
3. On the said reports and recommendations, a case was registered by the Collector vide Annexure P/9 as Case No. 71/A-19/2009-10 and the Collector has dismissed the proposal sent by the lower authorities for exchange of land on the ground that for the purpose of exchange, the land is to be recorded on the name of the person, who is seeking for exchange. As the land is recorded as government land, therefore, the said proposal and the application submitted by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 22.2.2011. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner under appeal under section 44 of MPLRC, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.6.2025 (Annexure P/12)
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the authorities have erred grossly in appreciating the matter because the mater is not actually of exchange, but of not granting any compensation to the father of the petitioner for the land, which has been surrendered by the father for construction of the government school. It has also been submitted that at the relevant point of time the authorities had granted the possession of the land, wherein the petitioner has been in possession since his father's time. As such, either the petitioner be compensated by way of money or he be given a suitable land or the land in which he has been cultivating.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the orders passed by the authorities.
6. It is evident from the orders Annexure P/7 and P/12 that the authorities have lost sight of the fact that the Tehsildar in his reportAnnexure P/6 and the SDO in his report-Annexure P/7 have endorsed the fact that the petitioner has been in possession since his father's time. It has also been endorsed that the land owned by the father of the petitioner has been given for the construction of government school and in exchange, the petitioner has been given the possession of the government land i.e. Survey No. 127/1 of the same village. Therefore, the Collector ought to have considered
