Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 985 (MP)

Idris Ahmed v. State of M. P.

2020-09-30

VIVEK RUSIA

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 30.8.2019; whereby the Board of Revenue has declined to continue the interim relief. 2. Facts of the case in short are as under :- Respondent No.5 filed an application under section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tahsildar Shujalpur against the petitioner and two others in respect of the eviction from the land bearing Survey No.1819/1, 1817 area 0.230 hectare, 1819/2 area 0.585 hectare, 1819/3 area 0.084 hectare and 1819/4 area 1.453 hectare total area 2.362 hectare of Gram Shujalpur (in brief “land in dispute). 3. The petitioner appeared before the Tahsildar and contested the case. Vide order dated 23.1.2017, learned Tahsildar has allowed the application and directed the Government to evict the petitioner and the vacant possession from the aforesaid land. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order petitioner preferred the first appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer in which vide order dated 15.2.2017 a stay was granted till final argument. Vide order dated 5.8.2017, the S.D.O. has dismissed the appeal with the finding that the aforesaid land is a Mafi Hadwai land through the Manager Collector, Shajapur and dismissed the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal the petitioner preferred the appeal before the Commissioner that vide order dated 17.9.2018 the Commissioner has also dismissed the appeal. 6. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a Revision under section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Board of Revenue along with the application for stay. The Revision came up for consideration on 4.4.2019 and the Board of Revenue has directed the parties to maintain status quo and issued notice to the non-applicants. The Revision came up for consideration. On 30.8.2019, the learned Board of Revenue has declined to continue the order of status quo due to change of circumstance after lapse of one year. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition is filed. Vide order dated 22.10.2019 while issuing notice to the respondents this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo as it exists today. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition is filed. Vide order dated 22.10.2019 while issuing notice to the respondents this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo as it exists today. 7. The respondents No.1 to 4/State have filed the reply as well as additional reply by submitting that in Civil Suit No.23- A/2011 the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 both have failed to prove their title over the land in dispute and vide judgement dated 28.11.2015 the learned civil Court has held that the aforesaid land is a land in dispute is a Government land. It is further submitted that now the sister of the present petitioner Naseema Khatun has filed a Civil Suit claiming title on the same ground on which the present petitioner has claimed before the civil Court. It is further submitted that the possession of the land in question has been taken by the revenue authorities and now other relatives of the petitioner are trying to encroach over the land, hence, the Revenue Inspector has issued a notice to them on 4.9.2020. 8. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the petitioner has obtained the order of status quo on 4.4.2019 by suppressing the fact that the possession of the land in dispute had already been taken by the Government, therefore, the learned Board of Revenue has rightly declined to continue the order of status quo. 9. Against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2015 petitioner and respondent No.5 both have filed the first appeal, in which there is no temporary injunction in favour of the either parties. 10. The Board of Revenue has granted the order of status quo on 4.4.2019 but without there being any application for vacating stay or oral prayer by the non-applicants the Board of Revenue has suo moto declined to continue the order of the status quo because one year has lapsed from the date of filing application for stay. 11. In my considered opinion, this cannot be a ground for not extending the order of status quo granted in favour of the parties. 11. In my considered opinion, this cannot be a ground for not extending the order of status quo granted in favour of the parties. The stay is liable to be continued till the final adjudication of the case if either party has not filed any application for vacating stay ,however, this Court while issuing notice to the respondent vide order dated 22.10.2019 has directed the parties to maintain status quo as it exists today and the said order is still in force, therefore, without entering into the merits of the case present petition is disposed of with the direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the pending Revision No.6203/2018 expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from today. The order of status quo granted on 22.10.2019 shall continue for the period of two months or till final adjudication of the Revision which ever is earlier. Petition is accordingly disposed of.