Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 20149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 9th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 478 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.
DIYANSHU GAHRIYA S/O SHRI SUNIL KUMAR
GAHRIYA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE JOB R/O GRAM KHAJURIKALA TEHSIL
HUZUR DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
BRIJ AHIRWAR S/O SHRI BAKSHILAL AHIRWAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER
R/O
GRAM
KHAJURIKALA
TEHSIL
HUZUR
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
RAMCHARAN S/O SHRI HEERALAL, AGED ABOUT
55
YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O GRAM
KHAJURIKALA TEHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
KAMAL SINGH S/O SHRI HEERALAL, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER R/O
GRAM KHAJURIKALA TEHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT SUNITA BAI S/O LATE SHRI GORELAL R/O HOUSE
NO 131 KHAJURIKALA HARIHAN MOHALLA BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
Shiv Kumar Sharma,
ORDER
By the instant petition, the petitioners are raising grievance in respect of an order dated 18.12.2022 passed by the SDO on an objection raised by the respondent whereby after getting demarcation done and application submitted by the petitioner, the order had been passed by the Tehsildar but no notice to the adjoining land owners was served, then objection has come from therespondent under Section 129(3) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Said objection was considered by the SDO and remitted the matter directing the Tehsildar to reconsider the application afresh submitted by the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to other adjoining land owners and pass order thereafter.
The melancholy of the petitioners is with the observation made by the SDO directing Tehsildar to consider their application and also call application of other co-owner for Batankan of their land and then pass appropriate order on the petitioners' application. Learned counsel submits that this observation is illegal and beyond the scope of litigation. He propounds that in case no adjoining land owner moves application for batankan then the application of the petitioners will be kept pending and it is every likelihood that the adjoining land owners will wittingly not move the application for batankan.
I find substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the order of SDO is modified to the extent that the application submitted by the petitioner can be decided by the Tehsildar afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the adjoining land owners, but Tehsildar is not required to call application for batankan from the adjoining land owners because it is not the requirement of law and the revenue authority cannot be compelled or request the adjoining land owners to move such application.
Let the order of SDO be implemented, as modified above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Sudesh Signature Not Verified JUDGE Sudesh
