Smt. Shyamlata Bindal vs State Of MP and Ors

This review application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC for recall or modification of order dated 18/06/2020 passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No.8352/2020 in which the following observations have been made:-

'' It appears that the petitioner Claims herself to be the owner of Survey No.682, situated in Village Amkheda, Tahsil Nai Saray, District Ashok Nagar. It is her

contention that vide Annexure P/3, a ''Patta'' has been granted in favour of the respondent No.7 in respect of the same land and on the basis of said ''Patta'', the

respondent No.7 is trying to take the possession of the land in dispute. In order to support her contention of ownership, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment

and decree dated 30th January, 1990 passed by Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Ashok Nagar in Civil Suit No.81-A of 1989.

It appears that an exparte decree was passed in favor of the husband of the petitioner against a private individual. Even the State was not made a party to the said

civil suit. Thus, at the most the said judgment and decree can be said to be a judgment in personam and not judgment in rem.

At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent

injunction.

With aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ''

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had never claimed to be an owner of Survey No.682

situated at Village Amkheda, Tahsil Nai Saray, District Ashok Nagar but the observation made by this Court in the order dated 18/06/2020 is contrary

to the claim of the petitioner.

Considered the submission made by counsel for the petitioner.

In order to appreciate the submission of the petitioner, this Court had requisitioned the file of Writ Petition No.8352/2020.

Paragraph 5.3 of the said writ petition reads as under:-

''5.3 That, the respondent No.7 who resides in front the land/plot of the petitioner, wants to grab the property of the petitioner anyhow and therefore the respondent

No.7 on the basis of false and incorrect facts got the Patta from the revenue department. Copy of the patta (Possession Certificate) is hereby enclosed and marked as

Annesure P/3.

The entire writ petition was filed without specific averments.

Therefore, the vague averments made by the petitioner had created an impression in the mind of this Court that by filing a writ petition, she is trying to

protect her possession over the Government land, however, in view of use of words ''it appears'' in the order dated 18/06/2020 passed in Writ Petition

No.8352/2020, it is clear that this Court has not given any finding that whether the petitioner is in possession of the Government land bearingÂ

Survey No.682 or not. It is for the authorities to record a finding of fact. Since the observation in the order dated 18/06/2020 passed

in Writ Petition 8352/2020 is based on the vague pleadings of the petitioner, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no error

apparent on the face of record. It is once again clarified that this Court has not given any finding in regard to possession of the petitioner on Survey

No.682, which is a Government land. Whether the respondent No.7 is entitled for grant of Patta or not, cannot be a subject-matter of the writ petition

because the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy for redressal of her grievances.

As no error apparent on the face of record could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.