IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI nd ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 2342 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

ISHWAR SOLANKI S/O SHRI MADHUSINGH SOLANKI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE KHANDWA, WARD NO. 14, TEHSIL PITHAMPUR, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI NILESH AGRAWAL, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, INDORE DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, INDORE REVENUE DEPARTM ENT, MALHARGANJ DIVISION, DISTRICT INDORE ADD. COLLECTORATE OFFICE, INDORE DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER MALHARGANJ DIVISION, INDORE REVENUE DEPARTMENT INDORE DIST. INDORE ADD. COLLECTORATE OFFICE, INDORE DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI KOUSTUBH PATHAK, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE).

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

ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Signature Not Verified India being aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.3/Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue, Malharganj, Indore in Revision Case No. 47/A-6(A)/2020-21.

2. The brief facts of the case are that this is the second round of litigation on behalf of the petitioner. Earlier, vide order dated 08.04.2022 the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub Division, Malharganj, Indore rejected the application of the predecessor of the petitioner for rectification/correction of the entry in the revenue map in accordance with the actual physical site of the spot. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.11251/2022. While deciding the case vide order dated 18.07.2022, this Court had come to the conclusion that, it is evident that the authority had not taken into consideration the various reports of the Revenue Authorities, Patwari, RI, Tehsildar, SLR and have passed the order only on the basis of settlement map and have also not taken into consideration the provisions of Rule 32 and 33 of the M.P. Bhu Rajasva Sanhita (Bhu Sarvekshan Tatha Bhu Abhilekh) Niyam, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2020). As a consequence, the impugned orders dated 31.03.2022 and 08.04.2022 were quashed with the direction to the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for rectification/correction of the khasra map on the basis of patwari khasra map as per the actual field on spot possession of the petitioner. It was further directed that the respondent No.3 shall pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order after taking into consideration the reports of the Patwari, RI, Tehsildar and SLR and also in the light of provisions of Rule 32 and 33 of the Rules of 2020 without being influenced by the instructions given by the Additional Collector.

3. In compliance of the order dated 18.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.

11521/2022, the respondents herein have again, without considering the Signature Not Verified directions of this Court, passed the verbatim order.

4. This case was listed for hearing on 31.01.2024. Learned Government Advocate for the State was directed to seek instructions in the matter as to why the orders of this Court have not been complied with and why the verbatim order has been passed.

5. Again, when the matter is listed today for hearing, learned Government Advocate for the State submitted on instructions that the respondents have committed an error in passing the same verbatim order, therefore, the authorities are ready to comply with the directions of this Court in order dated 18.07.2022 passed in W.P.No. 11251/2022 in letter and spirit and pass a reasoned order.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 15.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders in the light of the directions issued by this Court vi