IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT nd ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 25732 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

DHURANLAL NAGPURE S/O HARILAL NAGPURE, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O VILLAGE SAWARGAON WARD NO. 11 POST MIRAGPUR TEHSIL KHAIRLANJI P.S. TIRODI DISTT. BALAGHAT M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI R.S.THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.

SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. STATE OF MP THR SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE EXCISE COMMISSIONER VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. STATE OF MP THR SECREATARY FOREST DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BALAGHAT MP BALAGHAT(MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE BALAGHAT MP DISTT- BALAGHAT(MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DEPARTMENT WARASEONI, DISTT-BALAGHAT MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER POLICE KATANGI, DISTT BALAGHAT MP BALAGHAT MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified

8. EXCISE OFFICER EXCISE CIRCLE KATANGI TEH -

KATANGI, DISTT-BALAGHAT MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

9. TEHSILDAR KHAIRLANJI DISTT BALAGHAT MP DISTT-BALAGHAT MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

10. TEHSILDAR TIRODI DISTT BALAGHAT MP DISTT-

BALAGHAT MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

11. THE RANGER FOREST CIRCLE KHAIRLANJI TEH-

KHAIRLANJI. , DISTT- BALAGHAT MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

12. TOWN INSPECTOR POLICE STATION TIRODI DISTT BALAGHAT MP DISTT- BALAGHAT MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SUDEEP CHATERJEE, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

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

ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging order dated 16.09.2021, by which, revisional Court had dismissed the application of petitioner challenging order dated 25.03.2021. 2. Revisional Court has mentioned in it's order that Mahua which was been seized, was destroyed in proceedings undertaken by SDO. Said crop was destroyed as same was rotting. Further, it has been mentioned in order that petitioner was unable to produce any document showing that he was owner of said crops and he was registered for doing sell and purchase all crops in question.

3. Before this Court, petitioner has filed income tax return and submitted that said return contains all the details.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

Signature Not Verified

5. Considering the facts that no document has been filed by petitioner to show ownership of crops in question and crops have already been destroyed, therefore, no error is committed by Court below for dismissing the application for getting crops in supurdginama.

6. Writ petition is dismissed

7. If petitioner has any other cause of action survives, then, he is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

(VISHAL DHAGAT)

JUDGE nd Signature Not Verified