ORDER

1.The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-

v-jsLikaMsV dzekad 3 }kjk tkjh dkj.k crkvks uksfVl dzekad v&68@2024&25 fnukad 26-04-2024 ¼izn'kZ ih&1½ ,oa blds vk/kkj ij dh tk jgh laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh voS/k ,oa vuqfpr gksus ls lO;;

fujLr dh tkosA c-fcdYi esa ;g Hkh izkFkZuk gS fd jsLikaMsV dzekad 3 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tk;s fd muds }kjk izn'kZ ih&1 ds vk/kkj ij dh tk jgh dk;Zokgh dk lk{; laxzg.k mijkar ;kfpdkdrkZ dks leqfpr lquokbZ dk volj nsrs gq, ldkj.k fu"d"kksZ ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, fof/kor fujkdj.k djsaA l-;fn jsLikaMsV dzekad 3 }kjk ;kfpdkdrkZx.k ds fo:) dksbZ izfrdwy vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS rks mDr vkns'k ds fdz;kUo;u

de ls de ,d ekg dh vof/k ds fy, jksdk tkosA n-jsLikaMsV dzekad 4 o 5 }kjk fd;s x;s inh; nq:i;ksx ds fy, ,d&,d yk[k :i;s vFkZn.M vf/kjksfir fd;k tkdj mDr jkf'k ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks fnykbZ tkosA ;-vU; lgk;rk tks izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds ifjis{; es vko';d gksa og Hkh ;kfpdkdrkZx.k dks fnykrs gq, izdj.k O;; Hkh fnyk;s tkosA** 2.The present petition is preferred by petitioners being aggrieved by the action of respondents No. 3 to 5 whereby show cause notice under Section 248 of MPLRC has been issued to petitioners and without waiting for the outcome of the proceedings, they are trying to demolish the house constructed over the land in question.

3.It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that land in question is under the ownership and possession of present petitioners for that he referred Khasra entry of Samvat 2060-64 (Annexure P/4). He specifically submits that he is the owner of the suit property. However, respondent No.4- Mohanlal Sharma, Tehsildar, Pargana Bhind, District Bhind and Sudheer Singh Chauhan, Patwari, Halka No.2 Pargana, District Bhind want to purchase the said suit property, therefore, they are trying to harass the petitioners without any just and legal reasons.

Petitioners are owner and possessor of the suit property under legitimate title but same has been ignored by respondents and proceeded arbitrarily.

4.Counsel for respondents fairly submits that if show cause notice has been issued under Section 248 of MPLRC then petitioners shall file reply and respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law.

5.Considering the submissions, it appears that petitioners have leveled allegations against the working of respondents No. 4 and 5 who have issued notice to the petitioners purportedly under Section 248 of MPLRC. Therefore, Collector is expected to give this matter to some other Tehsildar who shall decide the application under Section 248 of MPLRC by seeking report from the competent revenue authority (other than Sudheer Singh Chauhan/respondent No.5) and thereafter shall decide the same as per law.

6.Till the application under Section 248 of MPLRC is decided, status quo in respect of the suit property shall be maintained.

Thereafter, appropriate proceedings shall be ensured.

7.With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. (ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE van