IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE

17th OF FEBRUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 2951 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

KISHORI LAL SAHU S/O LATE SHRI DUKHUA SAHU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE DEGHEE TAHSIL VIJAYRAGHAVGARH DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI N. K. TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE)

VIJAYRAGHAVGARH TEHSIL VIJAYRAGHAVGARH DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE NAYAB TEHSILDAR, CIRCLE SINGOUDHI VIJAYRAGHAVGARH TEHSIL VIJAYRAGHAVGARH DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY – DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the orders dated 11.8.2023 and 4.1.2024 passed by Naib Tahsildar as well as Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Vijayraghavgarh, District Katni in revenue case no.13/A-68/2023-24 and appeal case no.183/Appeal/2023-

24.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that father’s name of the petitioner is Dukhua and his name was recorded in the revenue record which is evident from Annxure-P/1 and area of Khasra No.285/6 was mentioned as 0.142 hectare. After the death of Dukhua, names of all the legal representatives of Dukhua were recorded in the revenue records, which is evident from Khasra Panchsala of the year 1983-84 filed as Annexure-P/2. Renumbering of Parcha of Khasra No.285/6 has been filed as Annexure-P/3, according to which, Khasra No. 285/6 has been renumbered as Khasra No.

315.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that during the Bandobast proceeding, total area of Khasra No.315 has been reduced and as a result, order of eviction has been passed under Section 245 of MPLR code against the petitioner on the ground that he has encroached upon Khasra no. 414. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner was directed to read the name of bhumiswami mentioned in Khasra of the year 1968-69 which has been filed as Annexure-P/1. In the photocopy of Khasra Panchala the name of bhumiswami has been mentioned as Purpuwa S/o. Gayadeen, whereas in the typed copy of this Khasra Panchsala, the name of bhumiswami has been mentioned as Dukhua. This typed copy has been attested to be true copy of Khasra Panchsala whereas it is clear that in the Khasra Panchsala the name of bhumiswami is Purpuwa and not Dukhua. Thus, it is clear that typed copy of Annexure-P/1 which has been filed is false and probably the name of bhumiswami was changed in order to show that the land belongs to the petitioner.

4. Be that whatever it may be.

5. The very purpose of attestation is that the attesting officer makes a declaration that after comparing the document with the original, he has found that true copy is verbatim the same whereas the typed copy of Annexure-P/1 which has been filed and attested by the counsel for the petitioner is not an identical copy. That is not the end of the matter. The petitioner has filed Annexure-P/2 which is Khasra Panchsala of the year 1983-84 to show that after the death of their father, names of the petitioner and his brothers were recorded in the revenue records. On the extreme left of this Khasra Panchsala where Khasra number is mentioned, the document is completely black and Khasra number is not visible. However, in the typed copy Khasra No.285/6 has been mentioned. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner was directed to point out that how the typist could see Khasra No.285/6 in the photocopy of Khasra Panchsala of the year 1983-84 Annexure-P/2 and who prompted the typist to type as Khasra No.285/6 in the typed copy.

6. It was fairly conceded by counsel for the petitioner that extreme left side of Annexure-P/2 is completely black and nothing is visible and even Khasra number is a