IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL ON THE 8^th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 2987 of 2020 BETWEEN:-

DHUNDHI SINGH CHAUDHARY S/O LATE SHRI RANDHEER SINGH CHAUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRIL. R/O JADERUAKHURD PINTO PARK TIRAHA BHIND ROAD, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI N.K.GUPTA- SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI S.D.S.BHADOURIYIA- ADVOCATE )

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SUB DIVISION MORAR DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA - GOVT. ADVOCATE )

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

ORDER

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, in Appeal No.178/2017-18 on 31.12.2018 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the Collector in Case No.6/2017-18 dated 5.3.2018 has been confirmed, petitioner has preferred Signature Not Verified this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD In brief facts of the case are that on inspection Revenue Inspector gave a inspection note that petitioner is having 9,600/- sq. ft. of land at village Jaderukhurd, Tahsil Morar, Distt. Gwalior at Patwari Halka No.53 and without diversion he is using the said land for commercial purposes as a godown. A case was registered under Section 59(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and notice was issued to the petitioner. In reply petitioner submitted that he has not constructed godown on whole of the area and he has constructed the same only on 5,000 sq. ft. area. On his reply dated 27.11.2000, SDO diverted 5,000/- sq. ft. of land for commercial purposes by directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.19,100/- as diversion fee and penalty which the petitioner has deposited. Thereafter, SDO, Morar, again issued notice to the petitioner mentioning therein that without permission and diversion he is using the aforesaid land for commercial purposes as a shop. On receiving the notice, petitioner submitted his reply that aforesaid land has already been diverted by order dated 28.2.2001 and he has paid the diversion fee along with penalty. SDO, Morar, after going through the aforesaid reply by his order dated 22.12.2017 is of the opinion that there is no order diverting the land for commercial use. Previously it was diverted for residential purposes. He sent the matter for reassessment of diversion fee. Thereafter Superintendent Land Records submitted his report assessing the diversion fee as Rs.10,41,600/-. On the basis of the said report, SDO passed the order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,41,600/- as diversion fee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, which was dismissed. Second appeal was preferred before Commissioner. After hearing the arguments, learned Commissioner directed Revenue Inspector for spot inspection. On the basis of Signature Not Verified report of Revenue Inspector beside record of SDO, he came to the conclusion Signed by: MADHU

09:51:31 AM that as per report of Revenue Inspector petitioner is using the aforesaid land

8977 sq. ft. for commercial purposes and directed SDO to recover diversion fee for commercial purposes on remaining 3977 sq. ft. of land. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred this petition.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the State supported the order of learned Commissioner and submitted that it is as per record and procedure. No interference is warranted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

On going through the initial report of Revenue Inspector, it is clear that on inspection he found that petitioner is using 9,600 sq. ft. of land for commercial purposes as a godown from 1998-99. He assessed diversion fee and submitted h