IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK th ON THE 29 OF JULY, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 3406 of 2024 BRAJMOHAN AND OTHERS Versus SMT PREMBAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vinod Kumar Dhakad Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri N.S.Tomar GA for the respondents/State.

ORDER The present petition is preferred by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

"(A). That, impugned orders Annexure P/1 dated 13.06.2022 passed by learned Additional Collector, Shivpuri in revision bearing No.0001/Revision/2021-22, order Annexure P/2 dated 26.12.2020 by learned S.D.O. Shivpuri in first appeal No.50/2018-19/Appeal and order Annexure P/3 dated 09.01.2019 passed by learned Tahsildar Shivpuri in Case No.01/17-18/A-13 may please be quashed, in the interest of justice.

(B). That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice".

It is the grievance of the petitioners that respondent No.1 filed a complaint purportedly under Section 131 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code with the allegation that her right of way to reach her agricultural land was obstructed by the petitioners. Therefore, a case was registered by Tahsildar Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR Shivpuri and Patwari's report was obtained. Patwari gave notice to the petitioners in which, the petitioners rebutted the claim so made. However, the Patwari report was obtained and after considering submissions, the petitioners were found to be encroachers, therefore, proceedings U/s 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code were instituted. In said proceedings, a fine of Rs.1 lac was imposed over the petitioners vide order dated 09.01.2019 by the Tehsildar. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred against said order before SDO Shivpuri which met with the same fate and was dismissed vide order dated 26.12.2020. Thereafter, revision was preferred before Addl. Collector Shivpuri which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2022. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

As submitted by counsel for the petitioners, the Court of Tahsildar illegally converted application U/s 131 of the code into application U/s 248 of the Code. There was no occasion for Tahsildar to pass such an order. The order is arbitrary and illegal. The demarcation was held without affording an opportunity of hearing. Under the provisions of the Code of 1959, the Tahsildar has no power or jurisdiction to create a certain way, therefore, orders impugned are arbitrary and illegal. The appellate authorities did not consider the legal position, therefore, impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that when application U/s 131 of the Code was filed by respondent No.1, an inquiry was conducted wherein, it was found that the petitioners were encroachers over the land, therefore, the Tahsildar had rightly drawn Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAM KUMAR proceedings U/s 248 of the Code and passed impugned order. Substantial justice has been meted out because not only obstructed way of respondent No.1 and other agriculturists was cleared but valuable government land was retrieved from the encroachment of the petitioners. According to the Govt. counsel, the petition is misconceived. This is a case U/s 227 of the Constitution of India taking exception to the order passed by Tahsildar as well as by the SDO and thereafter by Addl. Collector. In all three fora, the petitioners suffered. Therefore, on a factual matrix, this Court Under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot give independent findings because of limited jurisdiction. Even otherwise, no impropriety or procedural irregularity is pointed out, therefore, the petition lacks merits.

Even the submission of petitioners that they were treated encroachers by the concerned authority without affording any opportunity of hearing lacks merits because the impugned order dated 09.01.2019 by Tahsildar indicates that notice