SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36855

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vimal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Parimal Kumar – Respondent
MP 2413/2021



Advocates:
Parag S.Chaturvedi,

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

11th OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 2413 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

1. VIMAL KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI VARINDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O GRAM BELIYAMAUTANDI NAVE GAON JUNNARDEV AND DISTRIC CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. NIRMAL S/O LATE SHRI VARINDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O GRAM BELIYAMAUTANDI NAVE GAON JUNNARDEV AND DISTRIC CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. AMAL KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI VARINDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O GRAM BELIYAMAUTANDI NAVE GAON JUNNARDEV AND DISTRIC CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI VITHHAL RAO JUMRE - ADVOCATE)

AND PARIMAL KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI VARINDRA KUMAR GRAM BELIYAMAUTANDI NAVE GAON, JUNNNARDEV AND DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

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

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

ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 22.07.2021 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in Case No.0195/Appeal/2019-20 by which order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Junnardeo on 02.04.2019 passed in Revenue Case No.0048/Appeal/2016-17 has been set aside.

2. It is the case of petitioners that petitioners and respondent are real brothers and their father namely late Shri Varindra Kumar had ancestral property in Village Beliyamautandi area 10.429 hectares and in Village Badnoor area 1.394 hectares, total area 11.823 hectares i.e. 29.547 acres. After his death petitioners and respondent are his legal representatives. Petitioners filed an application under Section 178 of M.P.L.R. Code on 27.03.2015. However, land situated in Village Badnoor area 1.394 hectares was not included. On their application local Patwari prepared the panchnama and submitted before the authority and Naib Tehsildar divided the land amongst 4 brothers and passed the final order on 14.08.2017. Petitioner No.1 got 2.632 hectares, petitioner No.2 got 2.982 hectares, petitioner No.3 got 2.489 hectares and respondent got 1.521 hectares situated in Village Beliyamautandi. Accordingly, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before S.D.O. (Revenue) Junnardeo, District Chhindwara. The said appeal was rejected by S.D.O. Junnardeo by holding that although respondent got 1.521 hectares in Village Beliyamautandi but he got 1.194 hectares in Gram Badnoor, therefore, he also got 2.715 hectares in all and therefore, no mistake was committed by Tehsildar and dismissed the appeal of respondent.

3. Being aggrieved by order of S.D.O., Junnardeo, respondent preferred an appeal before Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. It is the case of petitioners that Additional Commissioner without appreciating the fact that respondent had also got land in other village and in all he has got equal share, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Tehsildar. Thus, the only argument advanced by counsel for petitioners is that their late father had land in 2 villages i.e. Beliyamautandi and Badnoor. Although respondent got less land situated in Village Beliyamautandi but he got more land situated in Village Badnoor and in all he got equal share. Thus, it is submitted that the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur is bad in law.

4. None for respondents though served. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

6. The Additional Commissioner in its order has held that from the record of authorities below, it is clear that it does not contain the acknowledgement of receipt of notice given to respondents for spot inspection proposed to be done by Naib Tehsildar and even the fard batwara does not bear the signature of respondent. Even the respondent has been given the land which is far away from the road. Under these circumstances, Naib Tehsildar should not have accepted the fard batwara a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top