The government cannot summarily evict property occupants without adjudication in genuine title disputes; legal ownership must be established in a civil court.

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in W.P. No.21948 of 2019 are being taken into consideration.

3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“7.1 quash the Notices no.82/Nazul/Reader/2019 dated 18.01.2019 and the order proceedings initiated by the respondents in furtherance thereof.

7.2 To award costs of this petition from the respondents.

7.3 Any other reliefs, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the Petitioners and against the respondents.”

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 18.01.2019, issued by the respondent No.2, the Tehsildar, District Dewas, wherein, the petitioner has been informed that he has encroached upon certain (Nazul) land by constructing a house, which has been found in an inspection by the Revenue Inspector, and has been directed to submit his response within three days’ time.

5. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the aforesaid land situated at Survey No.64/1/min-2, admeasuring 8.10 x 16.50=133.65 sq.m., and has made the construction in accordance with law, after taking due permission from the Municipal Corporation, Dewas, way back on 22.09.1970. It is also submitted that the original land belonged to Dr. Chandrashekhar Pandey S/o Damodarji Pandey, who was granted patta by the then Dewas ruler in the year 1944, and his name was also mutated in the year 1945, and after acquiring the bhumiswami rights, the land was diverted on 09.11.1960 by Dr. Chandrashekhar Pandey, as provided under Section 172 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code of 1959’) and after his death, his legal representative sold a part of the land to the present petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 21.05.1968. Thus, the petitioner and his predecessors in interest are residing on the said land since last around 48 years, but still, the impugned notice has been issued to his utter surprise.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has all the relevant title documents to demonstrate that he is the legal owner of the land, and merely by issuance of show cause notice, he cannot be dispossessed by the respondent/State without proper adjudication by the Civil Court, if the respondents contend that the land belongs to the State.

7. In support of his submissions, Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji Vs. Union of India and another, (2019) 20 SCC 705; paras 51 & 59 and Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another , (1982) 2 SCC 134 paras 8, 9 and 10.

8. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, and a reply has also been filed. The case of the respondents is that the land occupied by the petitioner does not bear any survey number. It is submitted that the land on which the petitioner has constructed his house, is a Nazul land and belongs to the State, hence the Tehsildar has issued the notice under Section 248 of the Code of 1959, and without even filing reply to the notice, the present petition has