Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 80 (MP)

Jagdish Singh Yadav v. Narendra Singh Yadav

2016-02-03

SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. On behalf of applicant- Jagdish Singh Yadav this petition has been preferred for review/modification of the order dated 5.8.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.5246/2013 (PIL) by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court, whereby such petition filed on behalf of respondent No.1 herein was disposed of with a direction that authority shall consider representation of such petitioner/respondent No.1 herein (Annexure P-1) submitted by him in such petition with a further direction to such authority that if it is found that there is encroachment, the authority shall take proper steps in regard to removal of such encroachment within the period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of such order. Pursuant to that, after taking cognizance on the representation of respondent No.1, the authorities of the State had issued a show-cause notice dated 12.8.2013 to the present applicant under section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code with a direction to demolish and remove his alleged encroachment over the public land. After receiving such show-cause notice, the applicant herein, has approached this Court with Writ Petition No.4272/2014 for quashment of such show-cause notice and on consideration of such writ petition of present applicant, vide order dated 30.7.2014 such petition was disposed of with following observations :- “ This petition has been filed against a show cause notice. In our opinion, this petition is premature at this stage. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that reply of the show cause notice has already filed. In this view of the matter, competent authority is directed to consider the reply of the petitioner, before taking any action in accordance with law. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.” and in compliance of such order as per the averments, the applicant has approached to the authority with the reply of the show-cause notice under section 248 of MPLRC, but such reply was neither considered nor decided by the concerning authority and some operative order was passed against the present applicant. Thereafter, no steps or proceeding was taken against the applicant by the State authorities, as submitted by the applicant's counsel herein. 3. Thereafter, no steps or proceeding was taken against the applicant by the State authorities, as submitted by the applicant's counsel herein. 3. Apart the aforesaid, when the order dated 5.8.2013 passed in aforesaid Writ Petition No.5246/2013 (PIL) was not complied with by the authorities, then respondent No.1 herein had approached this Court with a connected Contempt Petition No.131/14 and in pendency of such Contempt Petition, on behalf of the applicant who was not a party in the aforesaid earlier petition [Writ Petition No.5246/2013 (PIL)], this review petition has been filed to review the aforesaid order dated 5.8.2013 passed in aforesaid Writ Petition No.5246/2013 (PIL) on dated 12.2.2015. 4. Having heard the applicant's counsel at length on admission, keeping in view his argument, we have carefully gone through the review petition as well as the papers placed on record along with the order under review and the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court on dated 30.7.2014 in Writ Petition No.4272/14. After perusing the same, we are of the considered view that in any of the aforesaid order no operative order was passed against the applicant herein and such direction was given to the authorities of the State by the order under review to consider the representation of respondent No.1 and subject to such consideration if any encroachment is found over government land, then direction to take appropriate steps was given and it is apparent from the record that after considering the representation of respondent No.1, a proceeding under section 248 of the MPLRC was initiated against the applicant and on filing the writ petition against such notice by the applicant, with some observation his writ petition was also disposed of vide order dated 30.7.2014 in Writ Petition No.4272/14, so in such premises, the present applicant was having sufficient opportunity to defend himself in the matter of section 248 of the MPLRC in accordance with the procedure provided under the MPLRC. 5. 5. In the available circumstances, after perusing the record of Writ Petition No.5246/2013 (PIL), we have found that order dated 5.8.2013 was passed in consonance with the facts stated in the Public Interest Litigation Petition to provide protection to Government land and such order has got finality long before between the parties impleaded in such writ petition and in any manner we have not found any error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order dated 5.8.2013. Consequently, this review petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. Before parting with the case, we would like to mention here that dismissal of this review petition shall not come in the way of the present applicant to defend his matter or contest the matter registered against him by the authorities under section 248 of the MPLRC in accordance with the procedure provided under the MPLRC.