ORDER 1. This writ petition is of the year 2013 and till date, counter-affidavit has not been filed by the respondents/State despite, opportunity in that being afforded on 19.8.2016, 8.11.2016, 9.12.2016, 13.1.2017. Today, again, learned counsel for the State prays for further time to file the counter-affidavit. This Court has granted two weeks time to file the counter-affidavit, as a matter of last indulgence vide order dated 19.8.2016, however, the counter-affidavit has not been filed, though time was granted prior to and after 19.8.2016. Under these circumstances, no further indulgence is warranted for the reason that the petitioner is a senior citizen and running from pillar to post for protection of her possession over the land in question. The request of learned counsel for the petitioner for hearing the case is accepted and accordingly, the matter is heard on the basis of material placed on record by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is a widow of Charan Singh Jat Sikh and was aged about 80 years at the time of filing the writ petition. Charan Singh Jat Sikh was an ex-army man. Due to physical disability during his tenure in the military service, he was discharged in the month of July, 1940 from the service. As per policy of the State Government in vogue at the relevant time, petitioner's husband by virtue of an ex-army man and a physically disabled person was allotted land admeasuring 4.870 hectare, Patawari Halka No.77 falling in Survey Nos.125/2 and 126/3 situated in village, Gobai in Case No.43/70-71 × A/9 for the period 1971-72 to 1975-76 (Annexure P-2). Since then, petitioner's husband cultivating the land and harvesting crops, during his life time. He died in the year 1988 and thereafter petitioner continued to cultivate the land all along and paying the lagan. In the month of July, 2012, for the first time, petitioner came to know that the name of her husband has been struck off from the khasra panchshala and the land in question has been confiscated (Raj Sat”) in the year 1996-97 on papers though she continues to be in possession. Thereafter, petitioner immediately filed a complaint before the Collector on 24.7.2012 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, petitioner immediately filed a complaint before the Collector on 24.7.2012 (Annexure P-4). It appears that the complaint was processed and vide Annexure P-5 it was brought on record that under section 176 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1959 Code”), the land has been declared to be Government land and it is not possible to re-mutate the same in the name of the petitioner. Faced with that situation, the petitioner has filed an application to obtain certified copy of the order dated 1.9.1996 pursuant whereto the land has been allegedly declared as Government land by the respondents. However, petitioner was given to understand that record of Case No.1/92-93/A/25 has not been deposited from the Court of Naib Tahsildar to the District record room, therefore, the competent authority expressed inability to deliver copy of the order applied for by the petitioner. However, petitioner was given to understand that record of Case No.1/92-93/A/25 has not been deposited from the Court of Naib Tahsildar to the District record room, therefore, the competent authority expressed inability to deliver copy of the order applied for by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has preferred this petition on the grounds, namely; (a) patta of the land in question has been granted in favour of husband of petitioner vide Annexure P/2 and during his life time, cultivated the same (b) after his death, petitioner has all along been cultivating the same and paying the land revenue (lagan); and (c) therefore, the land in question could not be declared as Government land instead the land ought to have been considered for allotment in her name in view of clause 14 of original patta, Annexure P-2 which reads as under:- ^^¼14½ ;fn ik¡p o"kZ dh vof/k lekIr gksus ij vykWVesaV vf/kdkjh dks ;g lekèkku gks tk, fd fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krksZ dk ikyu fd;k x;k gS] vkSj de&ls&de 75 izfr'kr Hkwfe ij [ksrh dh xbZ gS rks og e/;izns'k Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 esa nh xbZ ifjHkk"kk ds vuqlkj mls HkwfeLokeh vfèkdkj ns nsxk vkSj QkWeZ ^^Å^* esa ,d iêk nsxkA ;fn Hkwfe dk iw.kZ fodkl ik¡p o"kZ ls igys gh dj fy;k tk, vkSj ml ij [ksrh dh tkus yxs rks jkT; 'kklu ds vkns'kksa ds v/khu Hkh Hkwfe&Lokeh vf/kdkj fn, tk ldsaxsA ;fn Hkwfe&Lokeh vf/kdkj ik¡posa o"kZ lekIr gksus rd ugha fn;k x;k rks iêk lekIr gks tk,xk] fdUrq dyDVj dk lek/kku gks tkus ij og mi;qDr ekeyksa esa iês dh vof/k c<+k ldsxkA** That having not been done, the petitioner has been divested of her fundamental right and legal right to continue to till the land in question under Article 300A of the Constitution of India without due process of law. 3. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State contends that as the patta was granted only for four years, therefore, after death of her husband, the petitioner has no right to cultivate the land. As such, the land having been declared as Government land though in the year 1996 cannot be faulted with. More over, there is no document on record to suggest that the petitioner has been in possession of the land in question and doing cultivation by paying lagan. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. As such, the land having been declared as Government land though in the year 1996 cannot be faulted with. More over, there is no document on record to suggest that the petitioner has been in possession of the land in question and doing cultivation by paying lagan. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court, there is no dispute that vide Annexure P-2, patta was granted in favour of late husband of the petitioner being an ex-service man for the period 1971-72 to 1975-76. There is also no dispute that during his life time, the land in question further cultivated by him beyond the period of four years, as such, the same has to be considered for further allotment of land in favour of petitioner in the light of clause 14 of the patta, Annexure P-2. Petitioner has asserted in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the writ petition that the land in question has all along been in the possession of the petitioner after death of her husband and she has been cultivating the land. That apart, petitioner has also stated that she has been paying lagan. In the absence of any denial thereto by filing counter-affidavit with supporting documents, the verbal denial by the learned counsel for the State is of no consequence. As such, prima facie, the petitioner is in possession and cultivating the land and paying land revenue (lagan) remained uncontroverted. Be that as it may, it appears from the communication, Annexure P-5 that the petitioner has made a complaint and the same indicates that the land in question has allegedly been declared as Government land under section 176 of 1959 Code. However, there is no order to that effect on record. Further, communication Annexure P-6 also indicates that the record of case No.1/92-93/A/25 has not been deposited in the District record room, therefore, the petitioner has not been supplied the alleged copy of the order dated 1.9.1996. 5. Section 176 of the 1959 Code provides as under : “176. However, there is no order to that effect on record. Further, communication Annexure P-6 also indicates that the record of case No.1/92-93/A/25 has not been deposited in the District record room, therefore, the petitioner has not been supplied the alleged copy of the order dated 1.9.1996. 5. Section 176 of the 1959 Code provides as under : “176. Abandonment of holding.— (1) If a Bhumiswami ceases to cultivate his holding for two years either by himself or by some other person, does not pay land revenue and has left the village in which he usually resides, the Tahsildar may, after such enquiry as he may deem necessary, take possession of the land comprising the holding and arrange for its cultivation by letting it out on behalf of the Bhumiswami for a period of one agricultural year at a time. (2) Where the Bhumiswami or any other person lawfully entitled to the land claims it within a period of three years from the commencement of the agricultural year next following the date on which the Tahsildar took possession of the land, it shall be restored to him on payment of the dues, if any, and on such terms and conditions as the Tahsildar may think fit. (3) Where no claim is preferred under sub-section (2) or if a claim is preferred and disallowed, the Tahsildar shall make an order declaring the holding abandoned and the holding shall vest absolutely in the State Government, from such date as may be specified in that behalf in the order. (4) Where a holding is declared abandoned under sub-section (3), the liability of the Bhumiswami for the arrears of revenue due from him in respect thereof shall stand discharged.” 6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid section suggests that if a Bhumiswami does not cultivate the land for two years either by himself or by some other person, does not pay land revenue and has left the village in which he usually resides, the Tahsildar after an enquiry as he deem necessary, may take possession of the land and arrange for its cultivation by letting it out on behalf of the Bhumiswami for a period of one agricultural year at a time. As per sub-section (3) in the event no claim is preferred under sub-section (2) or if a claim is preferred and disallowed, the Tahsildar may make an order declaring the holding abandoned and thereafter, the holding shall vest absolutely in the State Government. (Emphasis supplied) 7. In the instant case, there is no material on record to suggest that whether any enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar or the Tahsildar had taken possession of the land in question at any point of time or that the land is declared abandoned and stand confiscated as Government land. The petitioner was not even served with any order required to be passed by the Tahsildar under sub-section (3) of the section 176 of 1959 Code. Under such circumstances, the assertion of the petitioner that she continues to be in possession of the land and doing cultivation cannot be ignored. Consequently, in the opinion of this Court, this writ petition succeeds to the extent that if the petitioner is in possession of the land in question, she shall not be dispossessed therefrom except by due process of law. 8. Before parting with the case, this Court is constrained to observe that there is a growing tendency on the part of the respondents/officers of adopting indifferent attitude and being thoroughly negligent and callous in the matter of filing counter-affidavits or compliance of the judicial orders purportedly harbouring a notion that they can afford to ignore the mandate contained in the judicial orders. In fact, the aforesaid conception is miserably misconceived and that day is not far away that the Courts may start taking coercive measures against erring officers in a given case for gross negligence and showing disrespect and being dis-courteous to the Court orders. The conduct of the officers in this case speaks volumes about their misdemeanour. The manner in which the case has been handled by the respondents is a classic example of carelessness and unbecoming of a public servant as the State Government remained undefended for want of counter-affidavit though such officers are working under the Government and drawing salary from the State exchequer. The manner in which the case has been handled by the respondents is a classic example of carelessness and unbecoming of a public servant as the State Government remained undefended for want of counter-affidavit though such officers are working under the Government and drawing salary from the State exchequer. In the opinion of this Court, the Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh is required to take stock of the situation and initiate suitable measures to ensure that the Government actions are properly defended in the Court proceedings by responsible officers and erring officers are dealt with sternly otherwise in times to come the cause of Government shall be seriously jeopardized in the Court proceedings. 9. Principal Registrar of this Bench is directed to send copy of the order to the Chief Secretary, State of Madhya Pradesh, for strict compliance in the matter.