Kuldeep Singh Kohali vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard on I.A. No.7062/2018, an application for hearing the case during summer vacation.

The I.A. is allowed.

Also heard on admission.

The petitioner has filed petition against the order Annexure P/1 dated 18.05.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order Annexure P/1 is per se illegal because it has been passed contrary to the directions

issued by this Court in W.P. No.4528/1997 and the authority / respondent No.2 be directed to rehear the matter. In this view of the matter, this petition

is disposed of finally at this stage.

The petiti ner purchased land, total area 3.994 hectare, of Khasra No. 95 and 96 situate at Village Kudwari. He purchased the aforesaid land by

registered sale deed dated 31.01.1984 from respondent No.6. After purchase of the land, the name of the petitioner was recorded as owner of the

land and his possession was also recorded on the land. It was mutated in the name of Government in pursuance to the order dated 06.01.1984 passed

by the Collector in Revenue Case No. 1006/A-90/B-9/1976-77. Earlier the land was in the name of respondent No.6/Smt. Premlata Shrivastava.

Thereafter, the urban ceiling land proceedings were instituted against one Mr. C.V. Khare and Ganesh Prasad. Partition was effected. Smt. Premlata

Shrivastava was never noticed by the revenue authorities. She was in possession on the land and thereafter, the petitioner was in possession of the

land. Against the order passed by the Collector, Smt. Premlata Shrivastava filed an appeal before the Commissioner. That appeal was dismissed.

Thereafter, Premlata Shrivastava filed a writ petition before this Court against the assailing order dated 20.10.1997 passed by the Commissioner,

Jabalpur. This Court vide order dated 04.07.2006 quashed the order of the Commissioner and directed the Commissioner to rehear the case. The

Court disposed of the aforesaid petition with the following directions:

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur deserves to be quashed.

The Commissioner, Jabalpur has not looked into the various revenue papers of the year 1975 and onwards and the entries on that appointed day. It is

clear that the land was in the name of SurajPradeshDevi,notinte name of person who filed the return in earlier ca . Thus, the Commissioner ought to

have considered the ocuments in which Suraj Devi has been recorded as Bhumisw mi of the land in question and whether she was heard. The

documents have been ignored by the Commissioner, therefore, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. Yet another relevant aspect of the

case is required to be examined is whether petitioner is in possession of the land. In this regard, the Commissioner may also call for a report from the

competent authority.

Consequently, the Commissioner is directed to rehear the appeal and examine inter alia the aforesaid questions. The impugnedCourt der is quashed.

Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No costs.

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the Collector mentioning the fact that his name be recorded as owner of t e land because no

notice was issued in regard to taking possession of the land. Premlata Shrivastava obtained the possession on the land, hence, in accordance with the

provisions of Section 3 & 4 of Nagar Bhumi (Adhiktam Seema Aur Vinimayan) Nirsan Adhiniyam, 1999, the name of the petitioner be recorded as

owner. The Collector rejected the aforesaid submission after holding that the Tehsildar had taken the possession of the land and return was filed by

Mr. Khare. However, the authority has not considered the fact that whether any notice was issued to the petitioner or Premlata Shrivastava before

taking the possession. The authority has also not considered the observations made by this Court in W.P. No. 4528/1997.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case of Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar vs Deputy

Collector and Competent authority and others, (2012) 4 SCC 718 .

In view of the aforesaid facts of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 18.05.2018 is hereby

quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Collector to pass appropriate order after considering the observations made by this Court in the order

dated 04.07.2006 passed in W.P. No.4528/1997 and the principle of lawPradeshlaiddownbyt Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinayak Kashinath

Shilkar ( supra).

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is Disposed of.

No order as to costs.

C.C. as per rules.