Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 518 (MP)

Ram Sharan Kori v. State of M. P.

2010-05-05

K.S.CHAUHAN, S.R.ALAM

body2010
ORDER S.R. Alam, C.J. 1. In the instant petition filed as a public interest litigation the petitioner has raised the grievance against installation of plaint for manufacturing of compost fertilizer on Khasra No. 323, having an area of 18 acres land in the Village, Koshta, Tahsil Raipur (Karchuliyan), District Rewa and has sought direction commanding the respondents not to demolish the residential houses, 113 in number, standing on the aforesaid land. 2. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parities. 3. It appears that the Municipal Corporation, Rewa requested the respondents/State for providing the land for installation of the compost fertilizer plant for disposal of solid waste through letters dated 22-10-2005, 30-6-2006 and 14-9-2006, Looking to the requirement and the request made by the Municipal Corporation, Rewa the Collector, Rewa, respondent No. 4 herein allotted the land in question vide order dated 30.10.2006, measuring an area of 6.41 hectares for the purpose of establishment of solid waste/ compost plant with certain conditions, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-R/4. Consequently, possession of the land was handed over to the Corporation through Tahsildar, Raipur (Karchuliyan). Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation installed the solid waste plant, However, the petitioner along with other persons had encroached upon the land in question and made certain constructions over the same. Accordingly, an proceeding under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was initiated for their eviction vide Case No. 39A-68-06-07 (encroachment) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner along with others had constructed their houses long back and they are in continuous possession over the same since long, hence, they cannot be evicted without following due procedure of law. 5. We do not find any substance in the submission for the reason that admittedly, a regular proceeding under Section 248 of the Code for their eviction were initiated wherein they appeared and filed their show cause, besides they were given adequate opportunity of hearing only thereafter an order of their eviction had been passed. A fine of Rs. 50/- has also been imposed. It has been asserted in the return that the petitioner along with others were given reasonable opportunity of being heard in the proceeding. A fine of Rs. 50/- has also been imposed. It has been asserted in the return that the petitioner along with others were given reasonable opportunity of being heard in the proceeding. It has also been stated that they had filed their reply on 7-11-2006 however, the Tahsildar vide order dated 9-11-2006 imposed a fine and also directed for their eviction from the land in question. The above statement has not been controverted by giving rejoinder and, thus the contention that they are being evicted without following the due procedure is baseless and incorrect. Besides that the plant has been installed in the interest of pubic at large being requirement of the city to consume the solid waste and to utilize the same safely in the interest of environment No evidence or material has been brought on record to show that the petitioner has any right, interest or title over the land in question, or the same was ever allotted, or any permission was given to them the construction of their houses over the same. Admittedly, the land belongs to the State Government and has been allotted to the Municipal Corporation Rewa, for installation of the aforesaid plaint to maintain safe and healthy environment of the city. Further, the petitioner has not challenged the order of their eviction passed under Section 248-A of the Code in this Proceeding, nor has preferred any appeal or revision as provided under Section 444 of the Code. 6. In the instant petition, there is no element of public interest rather we are of the view that the same has been filed for personal interest to ventilate the cause of the encroachers/land grabbers and, thus, they have not come with the clean hands and thus not entitled to get any relief in this proceedings. 7. We, therefore, do not find and merit in the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.