Tez Bahadur Singh vs Umashankar And Others

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

Heard on I.A.No.8256 of 2025, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.

For the reasons assigned in the application, the same is hereby allowed.

Delay in filing the review petition is hereby condoned.

The present review petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review and recall of the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 22985 of 2025.

Short facts necessary for adjudication of the present review petition are that proceedings under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code were initiated against the present petitioner alleging encroachment over Government land bearing Survey No. 795/1 situated at Alampur, Tehsil Lahar, District Bhind. The petitioner, however, claimed ownership and possession over Survey No.494 of the same village, contending that his 13 shops are situated on his private land.

The Naib Tehsildar, vide order dated 06.01.2006 passed in Case No. 47/2004–05/A-68, held that the petitioner had encroached upon Government land. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Lahar. During pendency of the appeal, apprehending demolition, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1367 of 2006, which was disposed of on 09.03.2006, directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within a stipulated time and restraining coercive action meanwhile. In compliance whereof, the SDO, vide order dated 12.02.2008, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh decision, staying the operation of the earlier order dated 06.01.2006 till such decision.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 12-A of 2010 before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Lahar, which was decided on 22.03.2012, declaring that the petitioner is the owner of Survey No.494 admeasuring 0.073 hectares at Village Alampur.

Thereafter, respondent No. 1, Umashankar without having any locus moved an application under Section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code seeking restoration of the appeal which had already been disposed of. The said application was allowed, and the appeal was restored and decided by the SDO on 05.09.2020, allegedly marking the presence of the petitioner falsely.

The petitioner, upon learning of this order, filed Civil Suit No. 682 of 2024 before Civil Judge Class-II, Lahar, challenging the orders dated 06.01.2006 and 05.09.2020, which civil suit is pending.

Meanwhile, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.22985 of 2025 before this Court on 20.06.2025, seeking implementation of the Naib Tehsildar’s order dated 06.01.2006, without disclosing the pendency of the aforesaid civil proceedings or his own locus to maintain the petition. This Court, vide order dated 09.07.2025, disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities to execute the order dated 06.01.2006.

Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 was not maintainable for want of locus standi and for suppression of material facts, including the pendency of the civil suit between the parties. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jashbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors., (1976) 1 SCC 671; Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 33; and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and Ors., (2012) 4 SCC 407. It is urged that as respondent No. 1 had no locus and the order dated 09.07.2025 was passed without considering the maintainability of the writ petition, the same deserves to be reviewed.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 had supported the impugned order and had opposed the review petition.

Upon due consideration of the rival submissions, documents on record, and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matters of Jashbhai Motibhai Desai (supra); Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal & Ors. (supra) and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra), this Court finds that respondent No.1 has failed to demonstrate any legal right or interest affected by the action impugned in the writ petition. The petition filed by respondent No.1 does not disclose how he is in any manner aggrieved or prejudiced by the orders relating to the petitioner’s property, nor does it reveal any statutory or personal right violated. In the absence of such disclosure, the right of Respondent No.1 to maintain the writ petition, being a person aggrieved, could not be duly determined. Consequently, it cannot be held that he was competent to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, on this ground alone, the order dated 09.07.2025 deserves to be recalled, and the writ petition is required to be heard afresh on the question of maintainability. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The order dated 09.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 22985 of 2025 is hereby recalled.

The said Writ Petition No. 22985 of 2025 shall stand restored to its original number and be listed for rehearing on the question of maintainability, as per the roster, after a week.