IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI th ON THE 11 OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 1550 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

1. SMT. RAMPYARI W/O DURAGSINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE SHAHPUR WARD NO,07, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. KARAN S/O DURAG SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT

32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE SHAHPUR WARD NO. 7 TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. HARNAM S/O DURAG SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT

30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE SHAHPUR WARD NO. 7 TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. BHUPENDRA S/O DURAG SINGH GOND, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE SHAHPUR WARD NO. 7 TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI B.K. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN S/O RAJENDRA KUMAR JIAN R/O VILLAGE SHAHPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. BRAJENDRA JAIN S/O RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN R/O VILLAGE SHAHPUR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI DURGESH SINGH SIGRORE- ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the Signature Not Verified following:

ORDER

Assailing the order dated 13/02/2023 (Annexure P/4) passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar, the present petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that an application under Section 250 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, was moved before the Tahsildar by the respondents praying inter alia that they are owner of the land and in possession ad measuring 2820 sq.ft. situated at Khasra No.998 and the petitioner Jitendra Kumar is the owner of same Khasra Number ad measuring 1230 sq.ft of land. The said land according to respondents was occupied by the present petitioners and accordingly the eviction of the petitioners was sought by way of said application. The Naib Tahsildar Parsoria, District Sagar vide order dated 26/03/2019 issued direction for removal of possession of present petitioners over the property in question. The order passed by Naib Tahsildar, was assailed by the petitioners by filing an appeal before Sub Divisional Officer, Sagar who vide order dated 30/03/2021 allowed the appeal while observing that the provisions of Section 250 of M.P.L.R.C. was not applicable as the land in question was not meant for agricultural purposes and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. The order of SDO was then assailed by the respondents while filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner who vide order dated 13/02/2023 has allowed the appeal and has set aside the order of SDO dated 30/03/2021 and upheld the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar dated 26/03/2019.

3. It is contended by the counsel that in the present case a well reasoned order passed by the SDO has been set aside in a purely mechanical manner by the Additional Commissioner, Division Sagar without appreciating Signature Not Verified the fact that the applicability of the provisions of Section 250 of MPLRC was questioned which was required to be dealt with by the authorities. The SDO while arriving at a categorical findings held that as the land was not to be used for agricultural purposes and the land was bifurcated into plots, thus the application under Section 250 of MPLRC was not applicable. The Commissioner though referred to the said findings of the SDO but without sifting the evidence and without dealing with the said findings, has proceeded to set aside the order which is unsustainable.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed by the Commissioner requires no interference inasmuch as the order of Tahsildar was passed while appreciating the provisions of Section 250 of MPLRC. In the present case as the respondents were dispossessed from the property in question, resultantly, an application under Section 250 of MPLRC was passed which was rightly allowed by the Naib Tahsildar. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of