Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 131 (MP)

Sumer Singh v. Resham Bai

2018-01-31

S.C.SHARMA

body2018
ORDER 1. Parties Through their counsel. 2. The petitioner before this Court, Sumer Singh, has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer in a Jan Sunwai dated 10.5.2016 by which the Sub-Divisional Officer has decided the issue of title and issue of possession. 3. The petition is also against the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the Collector, who has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner saying that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code and it was an order passed in Jan Sunwai, therefore, no such appeal is maintainable. 4. Facts of the case reveal that the respondent has approached the Sub Divisional Officer in a Jan Sunwai, which is certainly not a Court as per any statute and it was stated that she is title holder of the property in question and she is entitled for possession. The Sub-Divisional Officer has passed the order holding that the respondent No. 1 is the title holder of the property and he has again gone to the extent in directing the authorities to evict the present petitioner and place the present respondent No. 1 in possession. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has argued before this Court that the Sub-Divisional Officer was justified in passing the impugned order in Jan Sunwai and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer does not warrant any interference. 6. Learned government advocate has argued before this Court that the order was passed in Jan Sunwai as there was a complaint against the present petitioner that he has taken possession of the house belonging to Resham Bai/respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer was justified in passing the impugned order. 7. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and these days, it has become a trend that the revenue authorities, District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Officer are deciding the title dispute. If such kind of procedure is permitted to continue, the Civil Procedure Code shall come to end and the Sub-Divisional Officer and the District Magistrate/Collectors shall be deciding all title suits and all of the injunction matters. 8. In the present case, not only the title has been decided but, a decree of eviction has also been passed against the present petitioner. Such type of procedure is unheard of. 9. 8. In the present case, not only the title has been decided but, a decree of eviction has also been passed against the present petitioner. Such type of procedure is unheard of. 9. Not only this, the learned Collector has dismissed the appeal stating that the order has not been passed under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, meaning thereby, after passing an order against present petitioner, now he is being told that you do not have remedy of appeal also. Such a procedure in a democratic set up cannot be permitted as the majesty of law has to be protected. Such type of practice by the revenue authorities is uncalled for and the practice of kangaroo Courts and kangaroo justice which is against the rule of law deserves to be deprecated. 10. Resultantly, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. In case, the petitioner has been evicted from the premises in question, the Collector, Dewas and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dewas shall rectify their mistake committed by them by placing the petitioner in possession. However, it is made clear that any party is having any claim in respect of title in respect of any property shall thereafter be free to file a civil suit before the Court having jurisdiction in the matter. 11. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of with a cost of Rs. 25,000/-. The same be deposited by the respondent No. 2 with the M.P. Legal Aid Authority Services within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. The Chief Secretary of the State of M.P. is also directed to communicat e this order to all revenue authorities as they are transgressing their jurisdiction. The revenue authorities be also directed to work within the frame work of law.