IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK ON THE 17^th OF FEBRUARY, 2024 MISC. PETITION NO. 621 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

AMOL SINGH S/O UDHAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O RAMNAGAR, TEHSIL RAGHOGRAH DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

…..PETITIONER (BY MS. RICHA BHADORIYA - ADVOCATE ON BEHAL OF SHRI AMIT LAHOTI)

AND AMANIYA BAI W/O GUMAN SINGH YADAV R/O VILLAGE SAVANTKHEDI TAHSIL RAGHOGARH DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

…..RESPONDENT (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT THOUGH SERVED)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

ORDER

1. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner taking exception to the order dated 26-12-2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 15-03-2018 passed by the SDO, Raghogarh has been dismissed by which the SDO, Raghogarh directed the petitioner for delivery of possession of the disputed land to the respondent.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the respondent moved an application before Collector in Public Hearing which was referred to Tahsildar and Tahsildar, Raghogarh registered the said application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). In the said application, respondent submitted that possession of the land of her ownership bearing survey No.110 area 1.536 hectare situate at Village Ramnagar, Tahsil Raghogarh District Guna, has been forcefully taken by the petitioner and prayed for recovery of possession from the petitioner. Said application was dismissed by Tahsildar, Raghogarh. On appeal by the respondent, the SDO, Raghogarh allowed the said appeal and directed for delivery of possession by the petitioner to the respondent. Said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division in second appeal. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the SDO, Raghogarh and Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division misdirected themselves in not considering the fact that in the case in hand, Section 250 of the Code does not apply. Both the Courts below did not bother to the findings recorded by Tahsildar while dismissing the application of the respondent. The evidence which has come on record not been taken into consideration that the respondent failed to prove that on which date she has been dispossessed from the suit property. Thus, without considering the material aspects of the matter, the Courts below entertained the application of the respondent without having the trappings of Section 250 of the Code. Thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents appended thereto.

5. Present petition is in respect of an application under Section 250 of MPLRC. Petitioner is member of weaker section (Nishakt Shreni) under the Code and her property needs to be protected because she is widow.

6. Although Tahsildar has rejected the application preferred by the respondent on the ground that after death of her husband she gave the land in question to the petitioner for cultivation on Adhbatai (half share) and it was her specific submission which is referred in the order of Tahsildar dated 30-11-2017 that petitioner stopped paying the half share in the crops from that year which he was obliged to pay. That payment may be in respect of agriculture crops or cash but the fact remains that recently at the time of application, petitioner stopped paying the said rent. Therefore, cause of action was within two years from the contingency as explained in Section 250 of MPLRC (prior to amendment came into force on 25^th September, 2018). Same is reproduced as under:

“250. Reinstatement of bhumiswami improperly dispossessed.-(1)