Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 126 (MP)

Mangu Singh v. Shri S. d. m. Mahodaya and Others

2020-01-22

S.C.SHARMA, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant before this Court has filed this present Writ Appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.4007/2019 (Mangu Singh v/s Shri S.D.M. Mahodaya & Others). 2. The appellant's contention is that he is a Bhumiswami and the respondents/State be directed the place him in possession of land bearing Survey No.1234, area 0.37 hectare. Earlier also, the appellant has preferred a writ petition i.e. W.P. No.2007/2017 and learned Single Judge has passed the following order:- ' [6] The petitioner is having two grievances; firstly the total area of land Survey No.1234 is 0.37 hectare but in the map it is 0.25 hectare, hence the map is liable to be corrected; and secondly the Respondents have illegally constructed the public toilet over some part of the land of Survey No.1234 which is a customary way and the same is liable to be restored. The petitioner had earlier approached the Sub Divisional Officer against the order of Tehsildar dated 30.09.2010 for the purpose of correction of map. The Sub Divisional Officer has held that the mistake had occurred in the map at the time of settlement of the map for which the Collector is competent to correct such mistake. By order dated 01.10.2011 the appeal has been dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector. It appears that the petitioner did not approach the Collector by filing an appropriate application and has directly filed the writ petition before this Court. The petitioner has also not challenged the order dated 01.10.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Now the petitioner is having also a grievance that the public toilet has been constructed over his land at the instance of his neighbour Varda s/o Gopal. The petitioner is having dispute with respect to customary way for which he is having remedy under Section 131 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. According to the Respondents there is no vacant land available in Survey No.1234 and the residential houses have been constructed and the petitioner cannot be given the possession of the land without hearing the others. According to the Respondents there is no vacant land available in Survey No.1234 and the residential houses have been constructed and the petitioner cannot be given the possession of the land without hearing the others. There are 6 owners of the different area of the land of Survey No.1234 which are as follows:-- ' 1234@1@feu&1 jdck 0&040 vuksidqoj ifr n'kjFkflag tkfr jktiwr 1234@1@feu&2 jdck 0&200 ekaxwflg firk y{e.kflag tkfr jktiwr 1234@1@feu&3 jdck 0&020 xqykcflga firk ekuflag tkfr jktiwr 1234@1@feu&4 jdck 0&030 yhykckbZ ifr jkepUnz tkfr ukbZ 1234@1@feu&5 jdck 0&040 :idqoaj ifr xqykcflag tkfr jktiwr 1234@1@feu&6 jdck 0&020 izsedqaoj ifr Hkxokuflga tkfr jktiwr 1234@2 jdck 0&020 lejFkflag ifr ekuflag tkfr jktiwr ds uke ls ntZ gS A ' [7] Therefore, at the instance of petitioner alone, no relief can be granted in respect of Survey No.1234. All these controversy cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition, the Civil Court is competent to decide all these controversy if civil suit is filed by the petitioner. [8] Therefore, the present petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. No order as to cost." 3. After dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, a second writ petition was preferred i.e., W.P. No.4007/2019, claiming same relief and the learned Single Judge has passed the following order:- 'Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and the material on record, there is substantial force in the submission of Shri Chhabra, learned Additional Advocate General that the similar controversy at the instance of the petitioner has been settled vide order dated 12/04/2018 passed by the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.2007/2017. If the aforesaid order was brought to the notice of the coordinate Bench on 25/11/2019 and 02/12/2019, the possibility of present situation might not have occurred. Admittedly, the petitioner has not preferred the civil suit. In fact, the judicial discipline does not warrant interference in the instant writ petition once the identical controversy has been addressed and writ petition has been disposed of by this Court. Be that as it may, the Collector Ujjain and Tehsildar Nagada present in the Court have stated before this Court that in addition to 0.25 hectare of land; a parcel of land to the extent of 0.070 hectare has already been allotted and possession delivered to the petitioner, and no further land is available for allotment in favour of petitioner. Be that as it may, the Collector Ujjain and Tehsildar Nagada present in the Court have stated before this Court that in addition to 0.25 hectare of land; a parcel of land to the extent of 0.070 hectare has already been allotted and possession delivered to the petitioner, and no further land is available for allotment in favour of petitioner. Therefore, it is hereby directed that the entire area of 0.32 hectare shall be demarcated and the name of petitioner shall be mutated in the revenue record upon completion of requisite formalities conferring bhumi swami rights with right of access to his land within a period of eight weeks in accordance with the law. Petitioner shall also put his signature on the possession (kabja) receipt after measurement of land conducted by the Tehsildar or any other competent authority. In the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that substantial justice has been done to the petitioner by the respondent/State therefore, no further indulgence is warranted in this writ petition. Writ petition stands disposed of. Before parting with the case, it is directed that theTehsildar, Nagda is directed to submit a report in compliance of the order passed today with a covering letter before the Principal Registrar of this Bench for placing the same on the record of this case with a copy to the petitioner within a period eight weeks. The personal appearance of Shri Shashank Mishra, Collector Ujjain and Shri Manohar Verma, Tehsildar Nagda is dispensed with." 4. The learned Single Judge, in the earlier round of litigation, has arrived at a conclusion that the controversy cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition and the Civil Court alone is competent to decide the controversy in a civil suit. The appellant, in spite of the aforesaid order, has filed a second writ petition. 5. The order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court. The appellant shall certainly be free to prefer a civil suit. As purely disputed question of fact is involved, he cannot be permitted to file writ petitions claiming same relief again and again. 6. In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Certified copy, as per rules.