IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL th ON THE 15 OF MAY, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 4471 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

1. SMT. NEETU SINGH W/O VIKRAM SINGH OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O BANK COLONY BHARHUT NAGAR, SATNA DISTT. SATNA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. I. P SINGH S/O SHRI RUDRA PRATAP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS NEAR GS DAS PETROL PUMP MIG ROAD SATNA TAH.

RAGHURAJNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

......PETITIONERS (BY SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. RAGHUVAR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI JAGDISH SINGH OCCUPATION: SERVICE IN FOREST DEPARTMENT R/O VILLAGE MADNI, TAH. RAGHURAJNAGAR, DISTT.

SATNA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER REWA LINK COURT AT SATNA DIVISION REWA (M.P)

............RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VARUN KUMAR DUBEY – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1, SHRI PRADEEP DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT 2/STATE)

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

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following: ORDER This misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners/non-

applicants (Smt. Neetu Singh & I.P Singh) challenging the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa (Link Court- Satna/Sidhi) in Case No.223/Appeal/2018-19 affirming the order dated 15.04.2019 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna in Revenue Case No. 356/Appeal/2017-18 affirming the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna, who allowed the application of the respondent 1/applicant filed under Section 250 of the M.P Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short ‘the Code’) and passed order of dispossession against the petitioners.

2. Facts in short are that the respondent 1 - Raghuvar Singh filed an application under section 250 of the Code, claiming himself to be bhumiswami of land Khasra No.208/4, 213/4, 214/1, 214/2, 215/1 & 215/2, total number 6, total area 0.349 hectare situated in Mouza Umri, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna and contended that upon filing application for demarcation, Revenue Inspector and Halka Patwari went on spot and made demarcation on 18.12.2014 and submitted report on 26.01.2015 which was made final vide case No.7A-12/2014-15, whereby it was reported that the petitioners have encroached upon entire area 0.049 hectare of Survey No.208/4, part area i.e. 0.016 hectare of Survey no. 213/4 and entire area of Survey Nos. 215/1 & 215/2. In view of such demarcation, the respondent 1 requested the petitioners to leave possession, but they did not leave possession, resultantly application was filed with prayer for dispossession of the petitioners namely Smt. Neetu Singh & I.P Singh.

3. Upon service of summons, reply to the application was filed by petitioners denying the averments made in the application and shown ignorance about demarcation of land on 18.12.2014. Disputing the veracity of demarcation, the petitioners contended that no encroachment has been done by them, therefore, there is no question of their dispossession and prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. Record shows that after filing of reply, Tahsildar heard arguments and passed order of dispossession on 07.06.2018 on the application filed under Section 250 of the Code. Upon challenge being made to it, the same was confirmed by Sub Divisional Officer and Addl. Commissioner vide orders dated 15.04.2019 and 24.07.2019.

5. Criticizing the aforesaid three concurrent orders passed by revenue Courts, learned counsel for the petitioners/non-applicants submits that after filing of reply by the petitioners to the application under Section 250 of the Code, it was for the Tahsildar to fix the case for enquiry/evidence of the respondent 1/applicant (Raghuvar Singh) and thereafter for evidence of the petitioners (Smt. Neetu Singh & I.P Singh), but Tahsildar did not even fix the case for evidence of the respondent 1 and heard preliminary arguments on 28.03.2018 an