Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 481 (MP)

Ramnath Lodhi v. State of M. P.

2013-04-09

D.K.PALIWAL, S.K.GANGELE

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this PIL against the order of exchange of Government land in regard to survey number 2470 situate at village Jaraya, Tahsil Pichhore, District Shivpuri passed by the Collector in favour of respondents 3 to 6. 2. Respondents 3 to 6 applied for exchange of land. The Nazul Tahsildar objected to exchange of the land. The Collector vide order dated 26.2.2001 rejected the application. Against the aforesaid order, respondents 3 to 6 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the matter back to the Collector. Thereafter, vide order dated 9.6.2003 the Collector permitted exchange of the land. 3. The petitioner has pleaded in the petition that the Government land which was exchanged with the land of respondents 3 to 6 was not an agricultural land and it is a valuable Nazul land situated adjacent to Highway. Hence, the order is illegal. 4. Respondents 3 to 6 have filed their return raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this petition. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because earlier the petitioner himself alongwith other persons filed an appeal against the order of exchange passed by the Collector and that appeal was dismissed. It is further submitted by them that the petitioner himself is an encroacher and he has made encroachment over the Government land and the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 31.12.2012 ordered the Tahsildar for conducting an enquiry against the petitioner in regard to encroachment. 5. The State Authorities in their return opposed the petition. They pleaded that the order of exchange was passed by the Collector after considering the relevant facts of the case and after a period of ten years, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of exchange of land passed by the Collector was against the provisions of Clause 20-N of the Revenue Book Circular. He further submitted that in accordance with section 237 of the MP Land Revenue Code, the nature of the land could not be changed. The land of the Government which was exchanged was not an agricultural land. Hence, the order of exchange of land is illegal. He further submitted that in accordance with section 237 of the MP Land Revenue Code, the nature of the land could not be changed. The land of the Government which was exchanged was not an agricultural land. Hence, the order of exchange of land is illegal. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the apex Court in the case of Meghwal Samaj Shiksha Samiti v. Lakh Singh, (2011) 11 SCC 800 as also on a judgment of this Court in Banwarilal Gupta v. State of MP, 2002 (1) MPLJ 420 . 7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 3 to 6 has contended that this PIL filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because the petitioner himself challenged the order of exchange of land in appeal which was dismissed. He further submits that the petitioner has filed the present PIL for his own benefit. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments : 1. R & M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilange Group and others, (2005) 3 SCC 91 . 2. Association of Synthetic Fibre Industries v. Apollo Tyres Ltd., (2010) 3 SCC 735. 3. Delhi Administration v. Kaushilya Thakur, (2012) 5 SCC 412 . 4. Damodar Prasad v. State of MP, 2000 RN 307. 5. Smt.Munni Devi v. State of MP, (WP 2890/10 decided on 12.2.2013 at Gwalior). 6. P.Seshadri v. S Mangati Gopal, (2011) 5 SCC 484 . 7. State of MP v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 . 8. NCTE v. Venus Public Education Society, 2013 (1) SCC 223 . 8. In the present case, the Collector has passed the order of exchange of land on 9.6.2003. Earlier the Collector had rejected the application for exchange vide order dated 26.2.2001 which was set aside by the Commissioner in appeal and the matter was remanded back to the Collector. In the order of the exchange, the Collector has ordered that 2.30 hectares of the land of respondents 3 to 6 be registered as “charnoi”. Petitioner filed an appeal against the order alongwith other persons which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Copy of the order has been filed by the respondents 3 to 6 along with their return as Annexure R/3-2. The appeal was dismissed on 4.1.2006. Petitioner filed an appeal against the order alongwith other persons which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Copy of the order has been filed by the respondents 3 to 6 along with their return as Annexure R/3-2. The appeal was dismissed on 4.1.2006. Thereafter, present PIL has been filed in the year 2012 after a period of six years. 9. Looking to the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner could not be entertained because after perusal of the facts of the case, in our opinion, the present petition cannot be termed as public interest litigation. We, however, observe that if there is any illegality in the matter of exchange of the land the State Authorities are competent to take action in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ..........................