Gopal Dheemer vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) That, the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 09.10.2018 may kindly be quashed and respondents may kindly be directed to consider the application (Annexure P-6) in the light of section 162 of MPLRC and may also kindly be directed to settle the land in favour of the petitioner as per law.

(b) That, the respondents may kindly be directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question without following due process of law.

(c) That, any other writ or order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in favour of the petitioner may kindly be issued in teh interest of justice.

(d) That, Costs of the petition may kindly be awarded."

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he is in possession of agricultural land bearing survey No.432 area 2.39 hectares as an encroacher. The petitioner had also filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class-I Kolaras to the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Kolaras, District Shivpuri by judgment and decree dated 30.1.2014 passed in Civil Suit No.24-A/2013. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2014, the petitioner had filed a regular Civil Appeal which has been decreed by judgment dated 30.9.2014 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in RCA No.3A/2014 by which the respondents have been restrained from dispossessing the petitioner except in accordance with due procedure of law. The petitioner later on came to know that the land in possession is likely to be allotted for some Government activity, therefore, he filed an application under Section 162 of M.P. Land Revenue Code for settlement of the same but since that was not done and the application was kept pending therefore, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No.3004/2017 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 12.5.2017 and it was observed as under:-

"Petitioner has approached this court with the grievance that he has been protected by the appellate court while disposing of appeal No.3A/2014 vide order dt.20.9.2014 (Annnexue P/3) against the dispossession except by due process of law from the land in question. Otherwise also he is a landless person. He has been given to understand that the land in his possession is likely to be allotted for some government activities and therefore he has filed an application under Section 162 of M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 for settlement but the same has not so far been considered and he has apprehension of forcible dispossession. There is nothing on record substantiating the same. However, the petitioner being a person of weaker section society and has been protected by the civil appellate court against dispossession, it is desirable that in the event such an application is filed, the competent authority shall dwell upon the application and decide the same in accordance with law."

Accordingly, the Collector has now decided the application filed by the petitioner under Section 162 of Land Revenue Code by order dated 9.10.2018 passed in Case No. 0018/B-121/2017-18 and has held that the land in dispute is required for establishment of Government offices. It is also mentioned in the said order that the petitioner has also been dispossessed and at present he is not in possession of any piece of land.

Challenging the order passed by the Collector, Shivpuri, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that under Section 162 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, the respondents are empowered to settle the land in question in the name of petitioner who is in possession of the same and inspite of the decree granted by the Civil Court, the respondents have not settled the land in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the land in question is the only source of livelihood.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

I have gone through the order dated 9.10.2018. It is specifically mentioned in the said order that the petitioner has already been dispossessed and he is not in possession of the land in dispute. This specific finding given by the Collector has not been controverted by the petitioner in his writ petition except by saying that the petitioner is doing farming and is residing by constructing a mud house.

Without entering into the question that whether the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute or not, the crux of the matter is that according to the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 the land in dispute is required for establishing the Government offices as well as for residential purposes. Once the land in dispute is required by the Government, then the same cannot be settled in favour of the petitioner under Section 162 of M.P. Land Revenue Code.

So far as the question of possession is concerned, if the petitioner has not been dispossessed so far, then the authorities are well within their right to take statutory steps for taking the possession back from the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the land in question is required by the Government, therefore, the present petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.