ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the orders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Sub Divisional Officer and Tahsildar respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the order Annexure P-3, the Additional Tahsildar has ordered the restoration of possession of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 on land measuring 0.03 hectare stated to be part of survey No.659. The said order Annexure P-3 has been confirmed in appeal by the Sub Divisional Officer vide Annexure P-2 and the second appeal has also been rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division vide Annexure P-1 dated 23.08.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the basis for holding that the present petitioner has improperly dispossessed the present respondent Nos.1 to 5 is one demarcation report dated 03.04.2010, wherein it has been found that on an area of 0.03 hectare in survey No.659, there is unauthorized possession of the present petitioner. This demarcation report has been placed on record by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 along with document No.13405/2023.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the predecessor of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 had filed civil suit based on the same demarcation report and the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012 (Annexure P-4). In the said suit, relief of declaration, restoration of possession and permanent injunction was sought. Restoration of possession on 0.03 hectare was prayed on the basis of the demarcation report of 2010. However, the said suit was dismissed by the Civil Court. Against the said dismissal, the predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 5 had filed appeal before the District Court, which has been decided by judgment and decree dated 13.12.2013 (Annexure P-5). It is submitted that by this appellate decree, the relief of declaration was given in respect of survey Nos.659 and 660 in favour of predecessor of the petitioner, but the relief of restoration of possession and permanent injunction in respect of 0.03 hectare land was refused by the Appellate Court.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 have lost for the same relief from the Civil Court and even if the said judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court was not proper, then they could have challenged the said decree by filing second appeal before the High Court in terms of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. However, it was not open for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to institute proceedings for eviction of the petitioner on the basis of same demarcation report, which was relied by them in Civil Suit, but they failed to get any relief in the suit.

5. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the revenue authorities have ordered something, which is contrary to the decree of the Civil Court and the respondent Nos.1 to 5 having lost before the Civil Court for the same relief based on the same set of facts, could not have invoked the jurisdiction of revenue authorities under Section 250 of M.P.L.R.C.

6. It is also argued that in terms of Section 250(1)(b) the limitation to institute proceedings under Section 250 is two years, whereas looking to the averments made before the Civil Court, the present petitioner is in possession at least prior to 2010 even as per the demarcation report, though it is claimed that the petitioner is actually in possession since last more than 40 years. Thus, after having lost from the Civil Court, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 could not have approached the Tahsildar under Section 250 in the year 2014.

7 . Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 that the Civil Court has granted declaration in favour of the predecessor of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 in respect of survey Nos.659 and 660 and no part of the said two survey numbers has been found to be owned by the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per demarcation report, the encroachmen