Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 823 (MP)

Jareena Bee v. Navab Jafar Ali Khan

2020-08-21

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT G.S. Ahluwalia, J. - This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division Bhopal in Case No. 233/Appeal/2018-19, by which the application of the petitioners under Section 89 of MPLR Code has been dismissed as not maintainable and the order of the S.D.O. has been set aside. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 115, 116 of MPLR Code before the Court of Tahsildar, Kurwai, District Vidisha for the correction of map in respect of Survey No. 471/1 area 1.066 hectare and Survey No. 471/2. During the pendency of the said proceedings, some objections were filed by the respondents, which were rejected by the Tahsildar by order dated 18.03.2010. Against the said interlocutory order, the respondents filed a revision before the Court of Additional Collector, Vidisha, which was registered as Case No. 58/Revision/09- 10 and the Additional Collector, Vidisha by its order dated 02.04.2012 remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar with a direction that the application filed by the petitioners under Section 115, 116 of MPLR Code be treated as an application under Section 107 of MPLR Code and after conducting an enquiry, a report be forwarded to the Collector. Accordingly, the Tahsildar obtained an application under Section 107 of MPLR Code from the parties and forwarded its report dated 15.12.2013 to the Collector through SDO. The Collector sought a report from the Superintendent (Land Records) and thereafter, the Collector found that in fact, the case falls within the purview of Section 89 of MPLR Code, therefore, transferred the case to the SDO for further action. Accordingly, the application was registered as Case No. 31/A-5/14-15 by the SDO under Section 89 of MPLR Code and by order dated 05.06.2017 allowed the application and directed for correction of map. 3. Accordingly, the application was registered as Case No. 31/A-5/14-15 by the SDO under Section 89 of MPLR Code and by order dated 05.06.2017 allowed the application and directed for correction of map. 3. Against the order of SDO, Kurwai District Vidisha, respondents filed an appeal before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, who by the impugned order dated 05.03.2020 has held that looking to the controversy involved in the present case, the application under Section 89 of MPLR Code was not maintainable and set aside the order of the SDO, Kurwai District Vidisha and also held that Batankan on the basis of the possession is erroneous, whereas Batankan should have been done on the basis of the lands sold by the seller. 4. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the original map is Annexure P-7, in which Survey No. 471/1 was shown on the front side. Thereafter, the map was unilaterally changed and Survey No. 471/1 was shifted to the back side and, accordingly, for the correction of this map, they had filed an application under Section 115 of the MPLR Code. It is further submitted that in fact, the proceedings under Section 107 of the MPLR Code and under Section 89 of the MPLR Code were taken up on the orders of the superior authorities and if the Additional Commissioner was of the view that the proceeding under Section 89 of the MPLR Code is not maintainable, then he should have restored the original application of the petitioners which was filed under Section 115 of the MPLR Code. 5. Per contra, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is supported by the counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 7. Section 89 of the MPLR Code deals with the power of the SDO to correct errors. Section 107 of the MPLR Code deals with maps of villages, abadi, blocks and sectors. 8. In the present case, the dispute is with regard to the map of village. Therefore, it is clear that two different maps, which have been filed as Annexure P-7, were prepared under Section 107 of the MPLR Code. Section 114 of the MPLR Code defines the land records, which includes village map prepared under Section 107 of the MPLR Code also. Therefore, it is clear that two different maps, which have been filed as Annexure P-7, were prepared under Section 107 of the MPLR Code. Section 114 of the MPLR Code defines the land records, which includes village map prepared under Section 107 of the MPLR Code also. Section 115 of the MPLR Code deals with correction of wrong or incorrect entry in the land records. Thus, from the conjoint reading of Sections 107, 114 and 115 of MPLR Code, it is clear that if there is any mistake in the map of village (land records), then an application can be filed under Section 115 of the MPLR Code for correction of the said map. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners had rightly filed an application under Section 115 of the MPLR Code, however, the Additional Collector, Vidisha by its order dated 02.04.2012 passed in Case No. 58/Revision/2009-10 erroneously held that the said application is to be treated as an application under Section 107 of the MPLR Code by. 10. Section 107 of the MPLR Code simply provides for maps of villages, abadi, blocks and sectors. However, there is no provision in the said Section for the correction of errors. Thereafter, when the application under Section 107 of MPLR Code was being considered, then the Collector erroneously held that the controversy falls within the purview of Section 89 of the MPLR Code and now, the Additional Commissioner has held that the application under Section 89 of MPLR Code was not maintainable. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the Additional Commissioner was of the view that the proceedings under Section 89 of the MPLR Code is not maintainable, then he should have restored the original application which was filed under Section 115 of the MPLR Code. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Case No.233/Appeal/2018-19 is hereby modified and all the proceedings including the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Vidisha in Case No.58/Revision/2009-10 are hereby set aside. The Additional Collector, Vidisha is directed to hear the revision which was filed by the respondent No.1 against the interlocutory order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Tahsildar, Kurwai District Vidisha afresh. The Additional Collector, Vidisha is directed to hear the revision which was filed by the respondent No.1 against the interlocutory order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Tahsildar, Kurwai District Vidisha afresh. It is directed that the authorities shall consider the application of the petitioners afresh under Section 115 of the MPLR Code and shall decide the same in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid modification, the order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Case No. 233/Appeal/2018-19 is hereby affirmed. 13. The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed to the extent mentioned above.