Uma Devi Gidroniya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners invoking jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 4.1.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed in Case No.0002/A-6-A/2018-19, arising out of Revenue Appeal No.90/A-6/2018, by the Collector, Jabalpur.

The brief facts of this case are that the petitioners had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction for land admeasuring 1,97,618 sq.ft., which, according to the petitioners belong to them. The said suit was filed in the year 2004. The civil suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 2.5.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.46-1/2009 by the court of the learned Third Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur. The sole respondent was the State. The decree passed by the learned court below is at page 36 of the petition. In the decree it is held "it is ordered and decreed that;

"उपरोक्त विवेचना के आधार पर वादीÛ.ा यह तथ्य प्रमा.िात करने में सफल रहे है कि वादÛ्रस्त भूमि उनके स्वामित्व की भूमि है तथा इस राजस्व अभिलेखों में उनके नाम पर दर्ज किया जाना चाहि,। परन्तु यह तथ्य प्रमा.िात नही कर सके है कि प्रतिवादी उससे बेदखल करने के का प्रयास कर रहा है। अतः वाद अंा'िाक जयप=ित किया जाता है तथा इस आ'ाय की धो"''ा.ाा की जाती है कि वादीÛ.ा

वादÛ्रस्त भूमि के स्वत्वधारी है परंतु उनके }ारा चाही ÛÛी स्थाई नि''ोधाज्ञा से सहायता उन्हे पद्रान नही की जाती है।

प्रकर.ा की परिस्थिति देखते हु, उभयप{ा अपना- अपना वाद व्यय वहन करेÛे।''

Given under my hand the seal of the court, this 2.5.2011

From the decree it is very clear that the suit property was decreed in favour of the petitioners and they were declared as the owners of the said property and that they had a right to get their names mutated in the revenue records. The court further held that as regards the relief of permanent injunction, the same was not granted as the petitioners/plaintiffs could not prove before the trial court that the respondent-State was trying to evict them from the said land.

Thereafter, the petitioners armed with the said order approached the Tahsildar, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur (respondent no.3) for mutation of the said land in their favour. The Tahsildar rejected the application filed by the petitioners. Against the rejection of the Tahsildar, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition No.17015/2017, and this court by order dated 23/08/18 held that as the relief of alternative remedy was available to the petitioners under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, "the Code") in the form of an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gorakhpur Division, Jabalpur (respondent no.4) the petition was disposed of giving the petitioners the liberty to approach the appellate authority. The relevant portion of the said order reads as hereunder "Since the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal, interference is declined. If the petitioners prefer an appeal within fifteen days from today, the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide it in accordance with law on merits and it shall not be thrown over Board on the ground of delay. The Appellate Authority shall make endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously."

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order passed by this court on 23.8.2018 in Writ Petition No.17015/2017, they preferred an appeal before the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gorakhpur Jabalpur on 30.8.2018 i.e. well within the period of fifteen days that was granted by this court.

Instead of deciding the said appeal, the SDO Gorakhpur Jabalpur exercised the option under section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and referred the case to the Collector, Jabalpur, for correction of wrong or incorrect entry in the land record. The Collector, Jabalpur, vide the impugned order dated 4.1.2019, has held in paragraph No.11 that in the interest of the State it would be essential to appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2.5.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.46-1/2009 by the court of the learned Third Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur. Further, the Collector has directed the Tahsildar, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur, to take the necessary steps to file the appeal immediately after contacting the public prosecutor/Government Advocate before the appropriate court. Thereafter, the Collector directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to keep the appeal filed by the petitioners pending till such time an appeal against the order of the civil court was not challenged before the appellate court.

The actions of both the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector can be termed ascontumacious conduct as it is in direct violation of the order dated 23/08/18 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.17015/2017.They have overreached the specific directions issued by this Court. The Sub-Divisional Officer was to comply with the aforementioned order in letter and spirit. He had to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners, if the same was filed within fifteen days from the date of the order passed by this Court. Further, the appeal had to be considered on merits in accordance with law. The said order did not give the SDO the option of referring the case to the Collector under section 115 of the MPLR Code.

The conduct of the Collector, Jabalpur, is also not in accordance with law and is questionable. The Collector was very well aware of the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.17015/2017 dated 23/08/18, as the impugned order passed by the Collector reproduces the operative portion of the order passed by this Court in paragraph no.4 of the impugned order.

The operative portion of the said order passed by this court on 23/08/18 was simply written, unambiguous and unequivocal. It required the Appellate Authority (respondent no.4 herein) to decide the appeal if filed within fifteen days from the date of the order, expeditiously on merits.

Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Collector, Jabalpur, deserves to be set aside. It is clearly apparent that both the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector have over-reached this court by not complying with the order dated 23/08/18 passed by this court in Writ Petition No.17015/2017 in letter and spirit.

Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gorakhpur Division, Jabalpur (respondent no.4) is requested to ensure compliance with the order dated 23/08/18 passed by this court in Writ Petition No.17015/2017 in letter and spirit and decide the appeal filed by the petitioners within a period of 45 days from the date on which the certified copy of this court's order is placed before it. If the order requesting the Sub-Divisional Officer as herein above is not complied with by the respondent no.4 within the period stipulated in this order, the petitioners shall be at liberty to move an appropriate petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Whenever an order is passed by any court, the authority to whom a specific direction is given by the Court, shall (a) comply with the order in letter and spirit, (b) if the order requires clarification, move the court which had passed the order for clarification, (c) if it doesn't want to comply with the order, the authority can seek a review of the order from the Court passing such order (where permissible under the law) or file an appeal before such Court before whom the order of the Court passing the impugned order is ordinarily appealed against and secure a stay of the impugned order, (d) file a writ appeal (where permissible) and secure a stay of the order (where passed by a single judge of the High Court) or (e) appeal before the Supreme Court and secure a stay of the operation of the impugned order. Other than this, any act of attempting to over reach the Court and not comply with its order, shall attract action against such erring officials/authority under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

This court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondents/authorities are requested to arrive at an independent opinion. A typed copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the State for necessary action.

Certified copy as per rules.