Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 977 (MP)

Ramkumar Dubey v. State of M. P.

2016-11-02

ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard with consent. 2. Present petition has been preferred against the order dated 8.7.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior; wherein ,the appellate order dated 11.2.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena had been put to test and the Revenue Board has set aside the same. 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that land belonging to petitioners vide survey No.769, which got renumbered in settlement as 606, but purportedly a part of the land attempted to be used as Rasta for the villagers as per the list of renumbering of plots as referred in Annexure P-6. According to him, the land belongs to the petitioners and unless the State Government acquires the same in accordance with law, same cannot be used for construction of road. He moved an application before the Collector, District Bhind for correction of maps, but failed and therefore, had the occasion to appear before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena; wherein, vide order dated 11.2.2016, authority has directed the Collector, Bhind to make necessary corrections in the map considering the position before the settlement, in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue has not appreciated the order of remand passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena and caused illegality and perversity to the extent that right of way has been given in the proceedings without ascertaining the factual position on spot. Order so passed will prejudicially affect the rights and title of the petitioners. 5. Another limb of argument of petitioners is in respect of locus of the respondents; wherein, without any locus they preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. They are not the affected parties. He further pleaded violation of principles of natural justice at the ends of District Collector, Bhind. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the relief prayed in the writ petition and justified the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 9 has argued that the respondents are having the land behind the disputed land belonging to the petitioners and therefore, they have right of way to have movement to their land over which they are residing. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 9 has argued that the respondents are having the land behind the disputed land belonging to the petitioners and therefore, they have right of way to have movement to their land over which they are residing. According to them, their easementary rights have been rightly granted by the Board of Revenue on the basis of resolution of Gram Panchayat Gadha, Tahsil Ater, District Bhind (vide Annexure R-3/3). He contends that a road/Rasta has already been proposed by the Gram Panchayat for construction over the land in question. He further submits that petitioners have preferred a civil suit seeking the same relief and after the order of Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, they have withdrawn the suit. He prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. A perusal of order dated 11.2.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena reflects that the change of survey numbers after the settlement and mist surrounding it are the main culprits and therefore, Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena has directed the Collector to enquire into the matter by affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and thereafter to make necessary correction in the settlement register/revenue records. 10. The petitioners are the land owners of the property in question before the settlement. But now the dispute is in respect of their title (for part of the land), therefore, the order of Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena whereby the direction has been given to the Collector, Bhind to conduct an enquiry about the effect, nature and fact of settlement over the said property as well as the availability of alternative Government land which could be provided for access to the villagers of the vicinity, seems to be a proper step. Without considering those aspects, Board of Revenue has passed an order which creates confusion and may lead to conflicts. Resultantly, the order dated 8.7.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal No.1069-ek/2016 is hereby set aside with a direction to the Collector, District Bhind to conduct an equiry into the matter by affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned keeping in view the land in question as well as the settlement proceedings. Let the aforesaid exercise be concluded within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Let the aforesaid exercise be concluded within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector, District Bhind on 15th November 2016. 11. Parties would be at liberty to adduce evidence, if required. 12. Copy of this order be sent to the Collector, District Bhind for necessary compliance. Petition stands disposed of.