Bandhavgarh Hotel Association and another vs Gypsy Association Bandhavgarh Tigar Reserve and others

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned orders dated 21/04/2016, 17/07/2014 and 11/06/2014 (Annexure-P/1 to P/3) passed by respondents No.2 to 4.

The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.403/1/Ka/1/1 having an area of 0.13 acre, khasra No.404/1/1/Ka having an area of 0.30 acre, Khasra No.404/2/gha/5/2 having an area of 0.0256 acre and Khasra No.407/1/4 having an area of 0.13 acre. Initially the land was recorded jointly in the name of the petitioner along with Mahendrapal Mongiya, Yogendrapal Mongiya, Praveen Kumar

Mangiya. Thereafter they applied for partition before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar vide order dated 09/06/2014 allowed the application filed by the petitioner and, accordingly, the separate revenue entries were prepared. On the basis of the said order, Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika was prepared wherein the name of the petitioner was also recorded in separate khasra entry. A complaint was made by Aamjanta Mauja Kolgavan for declaring 14 khasras sitiated at Mauja Kolgavan, Patwari Halka Bardadeeh to be as road. The Collector has exercised the power of suo motu revision and passed an order dated 16/17-1-2013. The Collector has directed the Revenue Inspector to submit Panchnama. The revenue inspector submitted his report on 24/06/2013. On the basis of the Panchnama, the SDO has published a notice under Section 242 of the M.P. L.R.C. stating that the same changes are to be made with regard to the land mentioned in the report and the same be recorded as Wajid-ul-arz and the persons aggrieved, were directed to submit their objections on or before 28/02/2014. On the basis of the objections submitted by the petitioner, a case was registered by the S.D.O. The SDO vide impugned order dated 11/06/2014

allowed the objections preferred by the petitioner and held that the land in question cannot be recorded as Wajid-ul-arz as it is a colony which cannot be come under term ''Public use'' and he ordered that the said land in column 12 of Khasra be recorded as road and drainage. Against the order of SDO, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 17/07/2014 has dismissed the said revision. Against the order of Board of Revenue, the petitioner has filed review before the Board of Revenue, itself who vide order dated 21/04/2016 has dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders passed by the Board of Revenue are illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that the Board of Revenue has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner in the revision and dismissed the revision by a cryptic order. He further submitted that the land in question has been recorded in the name of the petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be said to be reserved for road and drainage. He further submitted that the application/complaint filed by Aamjanta is

not signed by any person nor it is supported by an affidavit. In view of this, the Collector has erred in taking sue motu cognizance in the matter. He further submitted that while passing the order by the SDO, the petitioner was never heard and his objection was not decided by the SDO. In view of aforesaid, he argued that the orders passed by the Board of Revenue may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Board of Revenue for deciding the matter afresh.

On the other hand, respondent No.6 has filed reply and supported the orders passed by the revenue authorities. It is submitted that the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue after hearing the petitioner and the review is also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue passed the orders after hearing the petitioner and considering all the grounds which are raised by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Collector has power to exercise suo motu powers for correcting the entries. It has further been submitted that the land in question has been shown as road and drainage in the map by the Collector in the order dated 25/08/2012. In the application for partition filed by the petitioner before the

Tahsildar in which the respondents have not impleaded as parties.

I have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders s well as record. From perusal of the orders as well as record, it reveals that the petitiner along with some other persons have been recorded as owners of the land mentioned above. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application for partition before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar vide order dated 09/06/2014 allowed the said application filed by the petitioner and directed to record the name of the petitioner separately. Accordingly, Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika was prepared and the Khasra entries were corrected. Thereafter a complaint was made by Aamjanta about the land of 14 Khasra entries that the said land be declared as road and drainage. On the basis of the said complaint, the Collector by exercising sue motu powers had directed the Revenue Inspector to prepare spot map and submit report. On the basis of the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, the SDO has published notice on 13/2/2014 thereby inviting objection for recording the said land as Wajid-ul-arz. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted

his objection on 28/02/2014. Without considering the objection filed by the petitioner, the SDO had passed an order dated 11/6/2014 stating that the land in question cannot be recorded as Wajid-ul-arz as it is a colony, therefore, it does not come under the definition of ''public use'', however, issued direction for recording the said land as road and drainage in column No.12 of the kahsra entries. Against the order passed by SDO, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 17/07/2014 had dismissed the revision. Against the order of Board of Revenue, the petitioner has filed review which was too dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 21/04/2016. From perusal of the order passed by the SDO as well as Board of Revenue, it reveals that the authorities have not at all considered the objection filed by the petitioner and passed a cryptic order without considering the objection filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had taken a specific plea that the entire land did not come within the term of road and drainage, however, this objection submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the SDO while passing the impugned order. The Board of Revenue without considering the

grounds raised by the petitioner against the said order in the revision has passed a cryptic order and dismissed the same by a non-speaking order.

Thus, in view of aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21/04/2016, 17/07/2014 and 11/06/2014 (Annexure-P/1 to P/3) issued by Board of Revenue and SDO are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the S.D.O. for deciding the matter afresh by passing a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The SDO is further directed to pass the order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.