Pawan Parihar and Another vs State of M.P. and Others

S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 09-06-2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tahsildar.

By the aforesaid order, the Tahsildar ordered auction of land area 53 bigha 16 biswa. It is mentioned in the order that the land is of three temples named as "Shri Gopeshwar, Shri Rameshwar and Shri Maheshwar". The aforesaid order was passed on the basis of application submitted by the respondents No. 4 and 5 in the capacity of Pujari of the temples.

It is pleaded by the petitioners that the respondents No. 4 and 5 had no power and authority to file the application. They further pleaded that the land is not of the ownership of the temples. The petitioners pleaded that the land was of the ownership of Shyamlal and Pannalal before Zamidari. Father of the petitioners Kheyram was the Sikvi agriculturist of the land. Thereafter, Patta was granted in favour of father of the petitioners and their father remained in possession over the land. After death of the father, the petitioners remained in possession of the land. On the basis of this, the petitioners filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Sec. 57(2) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as the "Code"]. The petitioners were declared as "Bhoomiswami" of the land vide order dated 21-10-1998 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Copy of the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer has been filed as Annexure P-9. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that the Tahsildar has no power and authority to order auction of land and the order passed by the Tahsildar is without jurisdiction. The Tahsildar in the impugned order has observed that the land was recorded as "Muafi" of Aukaf Department. In Samvat 2025, the land was recorded in the name of temple and the Collector is the Manager of the temple. On 02-06-2010, possession of the land was also taken over. Hence, auction of land was held for the purpose of maintenance of the temple. The petitioner filed khasra entries of Samvat 2009 and 2005. In the aforesaid khasra entries, against the owner of the land it is mentioned Milkiyat Sarkar of Aukaf Department. The Sub-Divisional Officer specifically observed in the order dated 21-10-1998 that the land was recorded up to Samvat 2024 as "Muafi" of Aukaf Department and thereafter, in Samvat 2025 the name of the temple was recorded. Subsequently, the name of Collector was recorded as Manager of the temple.

Section 57 of the Code prescribes State ownership in all lands. Section 57(2) of the Code prescribes where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right, such dispute shall be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

Section 57(2) of the Code reads as under:-

(2) Where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under sub-Section (1) such dispute shall be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

From the aforesaid section, it is clear that if there is a dispute between the State Government and any person in respect of any right that can be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. However, in the present case, the land was recorded in the name of temple. It was not at absolute ownership of the Government. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power to pass the order Annexure P-9 in exercise of powers u/s 57(2) of the Code. The Tahsildar has already passed the order in accordance with law in regard to auction of the land on the ground that it is a land of temple. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that against the order dated 21-10-1998 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Collector has taken the matter in suo motu revision, the authority may continue the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ms. Bhantabai and Others Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer and Others, The judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. At this stage, in my opinion, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 09-06-2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tahsildar. The petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.