Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 150 (MP)

Diocese of Ujjain v. State of M. P.

2018-02-05

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2018
ORDER 1. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved with demarcation dated 24.1.2018 and alleged action taken by respondents on the basis of said demarcation. 2. Case of petitioner is that it is owner of land described in paragraph 6(III) of writ petition and is running a hospital therein. Further case of petitioner is that on the western side of the hospital 1800 sq.ft. land has been kept vacant by Municipal Corporation for widening of road and that the demarcation of land of survey No. 737/1/1 Min-2 allegedly belonging to respondent No. 6 was illegally done and on the basis of it, land adjoining to the boundary wall of petitioner has been dug resulting into blocking of emergency gate of petitioner. Further allegation has been made that official respondents are colluding with respondent No.6. 3. A reply has been filed by official respondents No. 1 to 5 taking the plea that respondent No. 6 had filed an application for demarcation enclosing therewith his title documents such as sale deed, mutation order etc. and on the basis of which demarcation proceedings were initiated and notice was given to petitioner and in spite of same petitioner did not appear and on 27.1.2018 the demarcation of land of respondent No. 6 was done. Panchanama and demolition report have been filed along with the reply and a plea has been taken against the demarcation order that petitioner has remedy of filing the appeal and that the dispute is of civil nature. 4. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that dispute is mainly between petitioner and respondent No. 6 and dispute is purely of civil nature, therefore, the writ remedy is not a proper remedy. 5. If petitioner is aggrieved with the order of demarcation, he is required to avail the remedy under MP Land Revenue Code and if he is asserting the title on the disputed land then the remedy available is to approach the civil Court. 6. So far as the official respondents are concerned, it has been pointed out that on the basis of complaint made by petitioner and respondent No. 6, FIR have been registered against both the parties and notice dated 1.2.2018 has been given to both the parties by City Magistrate to appear before him alongwith their documents. 7. 6. So far as the official respondents are concerned, it has been pointed out that on the basis of complaint made by petitioner and respondent No. 6, FIR have been registered against both the parties and notice dated 1.2.2018 has been given to both the parties by City Magistrate to appear before him alongwith their documents. 7. Hence at this stage this inference cannot be drawn that official respondents are colluding with respondent No. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that no case for entertaining the writ petition at this stage is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to petitioner to avail such other remedies as are available in law.