IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN st ON THE 21 OF JUNE, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 16690 of 2024 (NANDRAM AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OTHERS)

Appearance:

(SHRI AKASH SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS).

(SHRI MUKESH PARWAL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE).

(SHRI VISHAL BAHETI, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.5/CAVEAT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING).

ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging orders dated 05.06.2024, 21.06.2022, 29.03.2023, 20.05.2023, 23.04.2024 and 19.06.2024.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has expressed anxiety that in terms of the impugned orders, the petitioners are being dispossessed and the dispossession will take place even today or in the next one or two days.

3. The brief facts of the case as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the demarcation proceedings dated 20.05.2023 were carried out in which proceedings, the petitioners were found to be in possession of land owned by the respondent No.5. The demarcation proceedings of 20.05.2023 are on record as Annexure P/8. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal/application in terms of Section 129(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'MPLRC') challenging the demarcation proceedings on the ground that the petitioners were neither heard nor were noticed during the demarcation proceedings. The said application was dealt with by the Sub Divisional Officer and was rejected, being barred by time in Signature Not Verified terms of limitation provided under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC. Against the said order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P/7) passed by the SDO, petitioners filed a revision before the Additional Collector. In the intervening time, on the strength of the demarcation report dated 20.05.2023, the present respondent No.5 initiated proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC for eviction of the petitioners. In the revision filed before the Additional Collector against the order Annexure P/7 passed by the SDO which was in terms of the Section 129(5) of the MPLRC, the Additional Collector passed an order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure P/9) whereby the Additional Collector stayed the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC though, the said proceedings were not under challenge before the Additional Collector. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.05.2024, the Additional Collector posted the matter for final hearing but directed that status quo on the land in question shall be maintained by the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that once status quo was granted by the Additional Collector on 30.05.2024 and the matter was posted for 28.06.2024, in the intervening period, the present respondent No.5 submitted an application on 05.06.2024 and prayed for vacation of the interim stay on the proceedings of the Tehsildar and status quo which was granted on 26.04.2024 and 30.05.2024. The Additional Collector vacated the said stay vide order dated 05.06.2024 which is on record at page No. 38 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Additional Collector could not have taken up the case on 05.06.2024 after fixing the next date for 28.06.2024 without noticing the present petitioners. The main ground of attack by the petitioners is that the Additional Collector could not have passed the order dated 05.06.2024 in absence of the petitioners.

Signature Not Verified

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that thereafter in a hasty manner, the Tehsildar has passed the final order in the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC and by order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P/10) directed eviction of the petitioners from the land in question within three days. It is the case of the petitioners that the Additional Collector has misconducted the proceedings by fixing the next date for 28.06.2024 but taking up the case on an earlier