Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 308 (MP)

Kamla Devi v. State of M. P.

2011-03-07

RAJENDRA MENON

body2011
ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. 1. Heard. 2. Challenging the action of the State Government in transferring the land in question bearing survey No. 1560 area 13 bigha 9 viswa to respondent No. 4 in violation to the right and title available to the petitioner for the property in question, this writ petition has been filed. It is the case of the petitioner that she is wife of Late Mani Shankar Mudgal, and property bearing survey No. 1556, 1557 and 1560 belongs to petitioner's husband late Mani Shankar Mudgal. According to the petitioner, as there was some dispute with regard to ownership and title of the land in question, a civil suit was filed bearing No. 29A/73 and the Additional Civil Judge, Class II Sheopur by judgment and decree dated 14/10/1974, Annexure P-1 declared that one Ram Lubhaya has purchased a part of the property from the petitioner's husband Late Mani Shankar Mudgal and the purchase was found to be in order. 3. The aforesaid judgment of the trial court was assailed by the State Government before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court affirmed the decree granted in favour of Shri Ram Lubhaya and petitioner's husband Late Shri Mani Shankar Mudgal vide judgment and decree Anexure P - 2 dated 31/03/1979. The Second Appeal was filed before this Court was also dismissed vide judgement and decree Annexure P - 3, dated 06/08/1989. 4. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that her husband, late Shri Mani Shankar Mudgal was the original owner of the property in question and he has transferred certain part of the property to Ram Lubhaya, which was upheld by this court as it is evident from the judgments stated here-in-above. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is in contravention to the rights available to the petitioner by virtue of the aforesaid judgments and decrees. The transfer effected between the State Government and the respondent No. 4 vide Annexure P - 4 is illegal. Accordingly, the petitioner contended that either the land to be returned back to the petitioner or equal value in alternative place shall be granted to her, therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. The transfer effected between the State Government and the respondent No. 4 vide Annexure P - 4 is illegal. Accordingly, the petitioner contended that either the land to be returned back to the petitioner or equal value in alternative place shall be granted to her, therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, Senior counsel for the petitioner inviting my attention to certain orders passed in similar circumstances in the case of Ram Bharose Soni V. State of M.P. 2002 II MPWN 22, argued that when the property belongs to a citizen and documents show the same, the State cannot deprive the right of citizen for enjoyment and use of the property without following the due process, in accordance with law. It was contended that the transfer effected by the State Government to respondent No. 4 for setting up a Rice Mill is illegal, therefore, this writ petition has been filed. 6. Respondents have filed their reply and they have contended that the property belongs to the State Government and, therefore, the transfer is legal, however, the respondents are unable to point out as to how the right accrued to the State Government claiming ownership and title of the property. They do not challenge the decree passed in favour of Ram Lubhaya who has purchased certain part of land from the petitioner's husband, Late Mani Shankar Mudgal. That being so, the material available on record clearly indicate that the property did not belong to the State Government, but it belongs to the petitioner's husband, late Mani Shankar Mudgal, who has transferred certain part of the property to Ram Lubhaya and, therefore, the title of the petitioner and Shri Ram Lubhaya is clear from the judgment and decree passed by the Court, concurrently as is evident from Annexure P -1, P - 2 & P - 3 respectively and if the State Government wants to transfer the property under certain scheme of the State Government for establishment of an Industry. The State Government ought to have acquired the land or transfer the property in favour of any one only with the consent of the petitioner and not to deal with it otherwise. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The State Government ought to have acquired the land or transfer the property in favour of any one only with the consent of the petitioner and not to deal with it otherwise. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The Respondent/State is directed either to return the possession of the land in question to the petitioner or in the alternative ensure that adequate land of same value and same quantity be granted to the petitioner at an appropriate place. The necessary action shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid direction to the State Government, the petition is allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules.