CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 11 MP CK 0070

Halki Bai and Others vs State of M.P. and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 23 November 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.S. Jha, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 17238 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 327 words

R.S. Jha, Judge

1.

Shri Anil Kumar Yadav learned Counsel for the petitioners. I.A No. 13826/2012 for taking documents on record is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

2.

Documents be taken on record and consolidated with the original petition. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

3.

The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the validity of the notices dated 1.10.2012 seeking to remove the petitioners from the place occupied by them. It is alleged that the petitioners are regular lease holders of the land and cannot be removed by treating them to be encroachers.

4.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is observed that the present petition has been filed only against the impugned notices wherein the respondent authorities have themselves attached a note asking the concerned person to produce documents, if any, relating to title, etc., in room no. 31 and, therefore, it is apparent that the authorities have given an opportunity to the petitioners to establish their case before proceedings further. The petitioners, by way of I.A

5.

No. 13826/2012, have filed documents indicating that they have already approached the respondent authorities pursuant to the impugned notices and the matter is pending before the authorities.

6.

In the circumstances, it is apparent that the petition filed by the petitioners is premature as the authorities are yet to take steps against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned notices and have infact asked them to produce documents by attaching a note to the impugned notices itself, and, therefore, I find no reason to entertain this petition at this stage.

7.

In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed as premature with liberty to the petitioners to take up proceedings before the authorities or before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, as and when cause of action arises.

8.

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed. C.C as per rules.