Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 656 (MP)

AASMA BEE v. ESTATE OFFICER

2019-09-11

S.C.SHARMA, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Anand Mohan Mathur, learned senior counsel along with Shri Nilesh Agrawal and Shri Aman Nand Rajog, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents. Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, both these petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of the Writ Petition No. 10336/2019 are narrated hereunder. The petitioner before this Court, Aasma Bee W/o Mohammad Siddaki, has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 22-3-2019 passed by the Estate Officer under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 7-5-2019 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar (Mhow), District – Indore, by which, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The facts, as stated in the writ petition, reveal that the petitioner along with one Abdul Samad (petitioner in W.P. No. 19266/2019) have jointly purchased a land comprised in Survey No. 332/3/1 total area 2.646 hectare. The land was purchased by them through a registered sale deed on 18-3-2004. 3. On 25-5-2006, the name of the petitioner and Abdul Samad were recorded. The petitioner has filed a copy of the sale deed as Annexrue-A/3 and relevant entry in the Land Record Book as Annexures-A/4, A/5 and A/6. 4. On 13-5-2016, a diversion under section 172 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code was carried out (Annexure-A/7) and on 14-1-2016, layout plan was also sanctioned by the Director of the Town and Country Planning Department. 5. The most important aspect of the case is that the land was sold by Smt. Subratan Bee and Shri Harun, the predecessor-in-title of the land and the entire land, which was under ownership of the aforesaid person, was acquired way back in the year 1988 by the Government of India for establishment of a Firing Range known as “Hema” under the Infantry School, Mhow. The total land acquired was 483.295 hectare, which included Survey Nos. 332/3/1, 322/3/2, 324/1 and 324/2 at Village – Bhatkhedi. The total land acquired was 483.295 hectare, which included Survey Nos. 332/3/1, 322/3/2, 324/1 and 324/2 at Village – Bhatkhedi. The predecessor-in-title has received compensation of the entire land owned by them and have even filed a first appeal for enhancement of compensation and has received enhanced compensation also, as informed by the learned counsel for the Union of India. 6. In respect of the land belonging to Subratan Been Widow of Ahmed Mukhtiyar and Hasan i.e. land bearing Survey No. 332/3/1, the award is very clear. The entire holding was acquired and compensation was received by them. 7. The predecessor-in-title, knowing fully well that their entire land has been acquired and they have received compensation, fraudulently executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and one another person in respect of area 2.646 hectare in the year 2004. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the person who was not having title, has sold the land to the petitioner and one another person and on basis of sale deed of the year 2004, which was executed by playing fraud upon Government of India (Indian Army). The present petitioner, it appears that in connivance with the Revenue Officer, got the land mutated in the revenue record. It is really strange that the Revenue Officers, in spite of there being an award dated 31-12-1988 and in spite of the fact that the entire compensation was paid to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. The Revenue Officers have even gone to the extent in passing a diversion order. 8. The Government of India, the moment it was brought to the notice of army authorities that the land has been mutated in the name of the petitioner, preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow and the Sub Divisional Officer by an order dated 13-3-2018 has directed mutation of name of Ministry of Defence, and finally, the Ministry of Defence has been recorded as titleholder of the property on 16-2-2018. 9. The present case is a glaring example of land fraud, which takes place in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Systematically, the government land is converted into a private land in connivance with the revenue authorities. 9. The present case is a glaring example of land fraud, which takes place in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Systematically, the government land is converted into a private land in connivance with the revenue authorities. The diversion order was passed, mutation has been done and then all kinds of hindrances are created to ensure that the government land become a personal property. 10. The land is question, as was under the Ministry of Defence and a Riring Range “Hema” was in existence, which was a potent threat to the civilian, various notice was issued from time to time to the petitioner and other person on 16-12-2017, 19-1-2018, 6-2-2018, 13-3-2018 and 5-5-2018 by the Defence Estate Officer and again, the petitioner, who is certainly not the titleholder of the property, chose another way to defeat the rightful owner to be in possession of the suit property by filing a civil suit, seeking declaration of title, for declaring the land acquisition proceedings as null and void and also prayed for grant of permanent injunction. 11. The notice was finally issued by the competent authority on 4-2-2019 under section 4(1) and (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 to the petitioner and the petitioner appeared before the Estate Officer on 22-2-2019. 12. The petitioner has further stated that demarcation proceedings were also initiated in respect of the land in question and the petitioner has brought demarcation proceedings on record before the Estate Officer. The petitioner's contention is that the Government of India is in possession of more land than the land acquired, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the land, which is subject matter of the dispute. 13. The competent authority, after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after following the prescribed procedure, has finally passed an order directing eviction of the petitioner under section 5-B(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 on 22-3-2019, against which, an appeal was preferred and learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal. 14. Shri Anand Mohan Mathur, learned senior counsel has argued before this Court that the Government of India is in possession of land in excess than the land acquired in the year 1988 and as the petitioner has purchased the property jointly in the year 2004, they cannot be evicted by the respondents. 15. 14. Shri Anand Mohan Mathur, learned senior counsel has argued before this Court that the Government of India is in possession of land in excess than the land acquired in the year 1988 and as the petitioner has purchased the property jointly in the year 2004, they cannot be evicted by the respondents. 15. Even if, it is presumed for a moment that the Government of India is in possession of the excess land than the land acquired, the fact remains that the entire land belonging to predecessor-in-title, was acquired by Government of India for establishment of a Firing Range under the Infantry School, Mhow and once the entire land of predecessor-in-title was acquired, compensation was paid and even enhanced compensation was paid, a person who was not having title could not have sold the land subsequently, as has been done fraudulently in the present case, and therefore, the plea canvassed by the learned senior counsel does not help the petitioner in any manner. An unauthorized occupants in respect of land, which is under the ownership of Government of India, have to be evicted in accordance with law as has been done in the present case. 16. Much has been argued by Shri Anand Mohan Mathur, learned senior counsel in respect of mutation order, diversion order and sanctioned layout by the Town and Country Planning Department. 17. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and one another person is void ab initio, as the persons who have sold the land were not the titleholder of the property, all subsequent orders also void and illegal. If illegal orders have been obtained in connivance with the Revenue Officers and officers of the State Government, they do not confer any right in respect of title or in respect of any other right, as argued by the learned senior counsel. It is a case in which a fraud of great magnitude has taken place prima facie establishing involvement of revenue officers and other officers. An attempt has been made to play a fraud upon Ministry of Defence (Indian Army). 18. It is a case in which a fraud of great magnitude has taken place prima facie establishing involvement of revenue officers and other officers. An attempt has been made to play a fraud upon Ministry of Defence (Indian Army). 18. The army authorities are busy in protecting the border of the country and it is expected from the State of Madhya Pradesh to protect the Army Establishment and to ensure that no encroachment and no fraud takes place as has taken place in the present case. The officers, who look after the legal matters, believes in proceeding in a straight line i.e. believes in following the law of land and all kind of hurdles have been created to ensure that the land, which is under ownership of the Army, is converted into a private land. The army authorities have not taken the law in their own hands and as they respect the judicial system, have followed the prescribed procedure provided under the law. It would have been very easy for the army authorities to chase out the encroachers, who are not the titleholder of land and who are illegally occupying the land but, as they believe in rule of law and they are law abiding persons, they have followed the right path by taking shelter of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 in spite of the fact that all kind of legal jugglery has taken place in the present case. 19. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Western Coal Fields Limited and Another vs. Ballarpur Collieries Company and others, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 327 and his contention is that the Army should be directed to file a civil suit. 20. In the aforesaid case, there was a dispute in respect of title and the eviction was under challenge and in the present case, there is no dispute about the title. The land, which was acquired by the Government of India from the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, was sold subsequently by predecessor-in-title to the present petitioner and one another person, and therefore, the petitioner does not have any title and there cannot be any other view of the matter, and therefore, the judgment relied upon by learned senior counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner at all. 21. 21. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji and another vs. Union of India and another reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 394. 22. The facts of the aforesaid case reveal that it was a case of private property leased out to Government of India. It was derequisitioned again to a private person and again an order of requisition was passed by the Collector, Bombay and in those circumstances, a writ petition was preferred. The facts of the aforesaid case reveal that it has no nexus, so far as the lis involved in the present case is concerned. 23. The present case reflects that it is an open and shut case in which fraud has been played upon Government of India and now all kind of hurdles are being created in the matter depriving a lawful titleholder. 24. So far as the action initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is concerned, section 3 of the same reads as under : – “3. Appointment of estate officers. – The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, – (a) appoint such persons, being gazetted officers of Government [or of the Government of any Union Territory] or officers of equivalent rank of the [statutory authority], as it thinks fit, to be estate officers for the purposes of this Act : Provided that no officer of the Secretariat of the Rajya Sabha shall be so appointed except after consultation with the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and no officer of the Secretariat of the Lok Sabha shall be so appointed except after consultation with Speaker of the Lok Sabha : Provided further that an officer of a statutory authority shall only be appointed as an estate officer in respect of the public premises controlled by that authority; and (b) define the local limits within which, or the categories of public premises in respect of which, the estate officers shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on estate officers by or under this Act.” The aforesaid statutory provisions of law makes it very clear that the Central Government may, by a notification, appoint a person as Estate Officer. 25. 25. The Central Government, in exercise of power conferred under section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, has issued notifications dated 18-7-1978 and 21-7-1978 published in Official Gazette dated 5-8-1978 at Serial No. 31 Part-II Chapter – IV and the same reads as under : – “S.R.O. 235 – in exercise of the power conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (1) of the table below, being gazetted Officers of Government, to be Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act and further directs that the said officer shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on Estate Officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction respect of the public premises specified in corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Table : – S. No. Designation of officer Categories of Public Premises and Local Limits of Jurisdiction 1 Commanders Andhra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerela, Maharashtra and Gujarat, Bengal, 101 communication Z, Delhi, Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Orrisa areas Premises under the administrative control of Ministry of Defence situated within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction. Commanders-I Corps, II Corps, IV Corps, XI Corps, XV Corps., XVI Corps. and XXXIII Corps. Premises under the administrative control of Ministry of Defence situated within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction. 2 All Division and Brigade Commanders Premises under the administrative control of Ministry of Defence situated within the local limits of their prospective jurisdiction. 3 Commanders - Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala, Andhra, Bombay, Pune, Calcutta, North Bengal, Ambala, Jullundur, Dehradun, Lucknow, Meerut, Allahabad, Bihar and Orisa. Premises under the administrative control of Ministry of Defence situated within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction. Madhya Pradesh Sub Area, and 21 Sub Area, 31 Sub Area, 41 Sub Area, 51 Sub Area and 51 (Indep) Sub Area. 4 Station Commanders and Adm. Commandants of all Cantonments and Millitary Stations. Premises under the administrative control of Ministry of Defence situated within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction. Madhya Pradesh Sub Area, and 21 Sub Area, 31 Sub Area, 41 Sub Area, 51 Sub Area and 51 (Indep) Sub Area. 4 Station Commanders and Adm. Commandants of all Cantonments and Millitary Stations. Premises under the administrative control of Ministry of Defence situated within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction. The aforesaid notification empowers all Division Commander Brigade, Commander and Station Commander to be the Estate Officer in respect of premises under the administrative control of the Ministry of Defence situated within the local limits of the prospective jurisdiction. 26. In light of the aforesaid and in the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Estate Officer dated 22-3-2019 does not warrant any interference, as the person, who has passed the order is an Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the learned Additional District Judge has also rightly passed the order dismissing the appeal as devoid of merit and substance. 27. The petitioner, on the basis of fraud played upon Government of India by predecessor-in-title, is trying to find out all kind of excuses to grab the land belonging to Government of India, the orders passed by the Estate Officer and learned Additional District Judge do not suffer from any legal infirmity and they have been passed keeping in view the statutory provision, do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Though, this Court has dismissed the writ petition but, at the same time is of the considered opinion that the matter requires a probe by the Lokayukt Establishment to find out whether the officers of the State Government were part of large scale of conspiracy in diverting Government of India land (Indian Army) to private persons in spite of the fact that the land was acquired, compensation was paid and and to also probe in respect of various orders, which have been passed by various officers from time to time, and therefore, a request is being made to the Lokayukt Establishment to register a case and to probe the matter and to proceed ahead in accordance with law. The Ministry of Defence shall also be free to conduct an inquiry in the matter in respect of any act of omission done by its officers in the matter. The Ministry of Defence shall also be free to conduct an inquiry in the matter in respect of any act of omission done by its officers in the matter. In view of the detailed order passed by this Court in the present case, the connected writ petition also stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be kept in the connected petition also. Certified copy as per rules.