IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 4 OF JULY, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 6322 of 2022 (GIRISH SINGH AND OTHERS Vs VIJAY AND OTHERS)

Appearance:

(SHRI VIVEK AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS)

(SHRI VIJAY - RESPONDENT IN PERSON)

ORDER

Assailing the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Narmadapuram whereby liberty has been extended to the respondents for filing a fresh application in the light of the judgment passed by the lower appellate court dated 06.09.2022 in RCA No.13-

A/2022, the present petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents had moved an application under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tehsildar Multai, District Betul for removal of encroachment, of khasra no.192 area 1.607 hectares situated at Khadakwar District Betul, done by the petitioners as per the demarcation report of the Revenue Inspector. The objections were submitted by the petitioners and a patwari report was called for. It is argued that the petitioners are having possession over the land in question since more than 50 years, therefore, the proceedings under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 are not maintainable. The Tehsildar vide order dated 30.12.2021 has rejected the application on the ground that with respect to the land in question a civil suit for declaration is pending before the competent court, therefore, no relief can be granted to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL respondents. The said order was put to challenge before the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that the civil suit has been dismissed and now the respondents are owner of the disputed land. Learned Sub Divisional Officer has dismissed the appeal on 26.06.2022 on the ground that against dismissal of the suit, an appeal is pending adjudication. The respondents have preferred a second appeal against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer before the Commissioner and the Commissioner vide order dated 11.11.2022 has partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back for adjudication holding that the respondents are at liberty to file a case again without taking into account that a second appeal is already pending consideration before this Court.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that no such liberty could have been granted by the Additional Commissioner for the reasons that with respect to the declaration of suit land, a second appeal is filed and is pending consideration before this Court. He has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this court in the case of Bheekam Singh vs. Goutam Mallah reported in 2024 (1) MPLJ 156 to substantiate his argument to the effect that matter in civil side has not been finalized so far as second appeal is pending consideration, therefore, the revenue authorities having no jurisdiction to entertain any application for mutation on the basis of the judgment and decree passed by the civil court.

4. A specific question was put to the counsel for the petitioners as to what is the current status of the pending second appeal before this Court. After ascertaining, the counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that nothing has been done in the second appeal and the same is pending consideration. Till date no proceedings have taken place, even notices have not been issued in the second appeal. Therefore, merely pendency of a second appeal without any efforts Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL being made by the appellants to even get notices issued or injunction in the pending second appeal, does not debar the respondents from filing an application under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The claim of the petitioners with respect to declaration of title has been rejected by two courts i.e. trial court as well as the first appellate court.

5. The case law which has been relied upon by the petitioners, is dealing wi