Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 9 (MP)

Kamlabai W/o Tahalram v. State of M. P.

2011-01-04

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged application of deceased Respondent No. 6 and to set aside the patta (annexure P/2) which was granted by the Sub Divisional Officer in favour of the Petitioner. 3. In this manner, this petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the said order. 4. During the pendency of this petition, deceased Respondent No. 6 died and an application was filed on behalf of the Petitioner to delete her name as she had died leaving behind no heir. Accordingly, this Court on 6-8-1997 directed to delete her name from the cause title of the petition and her name has been deleted. 5. During the pendency of this petition, on 7-4-2005, this Court directed Respondents to hold an enquiry whether Rahman Bi had any successor in accordance with law or not. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer, Katni, after holding an enquiry submitted a report to this Court dated 11-8-2008 stating therein that after adopting all efforts it could not be ascertained that Rahman Bi who was a widow was having any successor or not. 6. The contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there is overwhelming material to hold that Petitioner was a tenant of Rahman Bi and was residing in the same premises which is being claimed by her. According to Petitioner, she is a landless person. In this context, learned Counsel has invited my attention to Annexure P/4 which is an application submitted by Rahman Bi in the revision proceedings before Additional Collector, Katni mentioning that in the disputed property, the husband of the Petitioner, Tahalram is residing as her tenant and although she is making demand to pay arrears of rent and is also asking Tahalram to vacate the premises, but neither he is giving vacant possession nor paying any rent. Alternatively, she also submitted that she is possessing the said property in question for the last 15-16 years and is also paying the property tax. Alternatively, she also submitted that she is possessing the said property in question for the last 15-16 years and is also paying the property tax. Thus, it has been contended by learned Counsel that since it is borne out from the record that Petitioner is residing in the same premises, may be as a tenant but, she is a landless person and is also possessing the property in question and further because Rahman Bi had died without any heir, the property in dispute be settled in the name of Petitioner. 7. Learned Counsel further submits that property in dispute is owned by the State Government and Rahman Bi was only a trespasser although she inducted Petitioner's husband Tahalram as her tenant in it. It has been further been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Authorized Officer under the Adhiniyam is the Collector and, therefore, the order impugned (annexure P/11) passed by Additional Collector is without jurisdiction and further it has been contended that in flagrant violation of law, the said authority enquired the matter in detail although it was not permissible under Section 4-A of the said Act while hearing the revision application. On these premised submissions, it has been argued that this petition be allowed and the patta (annxure P/2) granted by Sub Divisional Officer in favour of the Petitioner be restored. 8. On the other hand, Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate argued in support of the impugned order. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 10. I do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the impugned order is passed by the Additional Collector, the same is without jurisdiction, because, under Section 4-A of the said Act, only Collector is empowered to hear the revision application. 10. I do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the impugned order is passed by the Additional Collector, the same is without jurisdiction, because, under Section 4-A of the said Act, only Collector is empowered to hear the revision application. On bare perusal of Section 2(e) of the said Act, it is luminously clear like a noon day that words and expression used but not defined in the said Act and defined in M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code and therefore, according to me, the word "Collector" used in Section 4-A of the Act would mean to include the Additional Collector also and in this regard, it will be profitable to place reliance on Section 11 as well as Section 17 of the Code. According to Section 11, the Collector would include Additional Collector also and a bare perusal of Section 17 of the Code, this Court finds that the Additional Collector can discharge any duties under Sub-section (2) of Section 17 if he had been the Collector of the District and, therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order (annexure P/11) passed by Additional Collector is without jurisdiction cannot be accepted and it is hereby held that Additional Collector was empowered to hear the revision application filed under the Act. 11. Now coming to the merit of the case, this Court finds that deceased Respondent No. 6 died as widow and in the report which has been submitted by the Respondents in compliance to the order passed by this Court, it has been mentioned that after full efforts, it could not be ascertained that she was having any successor or not. In this petition also, none has appeared after the death of deceased Respondent No. 6 claiming himself or herself to be the heir or legal representative of Rahman Bi and, therefore, for the purposes of this petition, it is hereby held that said Rahman Bi died as widow leaving behind no heir or any legal representative. 12. In this petition also, none has appeared after the death of deceased Respondent No. 6 claiming himself or herself to be the heir or legal representative of Rahman Bi and, therefore, for the purposes of this petition, it is hereby held that said Rahman Bi died as widow leaving behind no heir or any legal representative. 12. On bare perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that learned Additional Collector did not pay any heed to the application/objections (annexure P/4) submitted by Rahman Bi before it stating in para 2 that in the property in dispute, the Petitioner's husband Tahalram is residing as her tenant and it has also been stated by her that neither the Tahalram is paying the rent nor he is vacating the property in question and, therefore, according to me, she has admitted that Tahalram was her tenant and was residing in the property in question and he did not vacate the said property. Needless to say that Petitioner is the widow of Tahalram. It is also not disputed that the property in question is owned by the State of M.P. and hence according to me, deceased Respondent No. 6 was a trespasser in the government property and Petitioner was the tenant of a trespasser. 13. There is no material on record in order to indicate that Petitioner is not a landless person. On the contrary, a bare perusal of the patta (annexure P/2) granted in her favour by the Sub Divisional Officer, it is gathered that she is a landless person as envisaged under Section 2(d) of the Act. There is no finding of the learned Additional Collector holding otherwise that Petitioner is not a landless person as envisaged under Section 2(d) of the said Act and according to learned Additional Collector, Rahman Bi was holding the property. There is no finding of the learned Additional Collector holding otherwise that Petitioner is not a landless person as envisaged under Section 2(d) of the said Act and according to learned Additional Collector, Rahman Bi was holding the property. On bare perusal of the application/objections (annexure P/4) which were filed by Rahman Bi in revision proceedings, this Court finds that there is a clear admission of her that Petitioner's husband Tahalram is residing in the property in question as her tenant and, therefore, since the Petitioner is possessing the property in question and patta has been granted under the said Act to her by the Sub Divisional Officer and there is no other material to hold that she is not a landless person, therefore, according to me, the impugned order (annexure P/11) dated 30-12-1986 passed by the Additional Collector (Respondent No. 2) is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the said Act and, therefore, I have no option except to set aside the said order of Additional Collector and I do it accordingly. 14. Resultantly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 30-12-1986 (annexure P/11) passed by Additional Collector is hereby set aside and patta (annexure P/2) appears to have been granted vide order dated 17-6-1984 by Sub Divisional Officer in favour of Petitioner is held to be a valid patta. No order as to costs.