Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 347 (MP)

Ashok Tyagi v. State of M. P.

2021-03-10

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
ORDER 1. The present petition is being filed seeking following reliefs :- “1. That, the respondent state authorities be directed to ensure the compliance of order dated 22.6.2020 Annexure P/1 passed in eviction case No.04/2019-20A68 whereby the encroachers are directed to be remove from the government and with fine of Rs.1000/- each. 2. That, the respondent further be directed to proceed against the encroachers not only to dispossess them from government land but also send him civil jail as provided u/s 248(2)A of M.P.L.R.C. 3. That, cost of this litigation may also be awarded. 4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner.” 2. It is alleged that with respect to the controversy on earlier occasion in Miscellaneous Petition is being 319/2021 (Ashok Tyagi and Others v. State of MP. and Others) was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.1.2021 with liberty to approach the Collector, District Morena, for redressal of his grievances. 3. It is alleged that the agricultural land bearing survey No.223 situated in village Sherpura is a Government land near a pond the said govt. land has been encroached by the private encroachers Satyaram, Jor Singh, Rajendra, Ramlachhin, Harvilas and Khacchuram. therefore, in pursuance to the directions given by this Court an application under section 248 of M.P.L.R.C was filed by the petitioners to set free the encroachment from survey No.223. On the proceedings being taken up by the Tahsildar, the final order was passed on 22.6.2020 wherein the encroachment was found and encroachers were penalized for 1000/- rupees fine and were directed to be evicted from the land in question. Thereafter, no further proceedings have been taken up by the authorities. It is argued that under section 248(2- A) of the M.P.L.R.C, the S.D.O. has empowered to pass orders to issue warrants for confining the encroachers for civil prisons once the order of ejectment is being passed and he remained an unauthorized possession for more than seven days. No such procedure has been adopted. Therefore, he has filed the present petition. 4. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that for execution of the order passed by the Tahsildar the writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. No such procedure has been adopted. Therefore, he has filed the present petition. 4. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that for execution of the order passed by the Tahsildar the writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. The petitioners should have approached the S.D.O. by filing an application for compliance of the order passed by the Tahsildar as the encroachment on the Govt. land was found by the Tahsildar in proceedings under section 248 of M.P.L.R.C. Now the petitioners should have approached the concerning S.D.O. for seeking execution of the order as required under section 248(2-A) of M.P.L.R.C. Although the proceedings should have been taken up by the concerning S.D.O. but the same has not been taken up by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioners may approach the concerning S.D.O. by filing appropriate application for execution of the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 26.02.2020 under 248 proceedings. No relief can be extended to the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Apart from the admitted position there is encroachment upon the land bearing survey No.223 by the respondents as found by the Tahsildar in proceedings imitated under section 248 of M.P.L.R.C. vide order dated 26.2.2020. No further action is being taken. 7. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Apart from the admitted position there is encroachment upon the land bearing survey No.223 by the respondents as found by the Tahsildar in proceedings imitated under section 248 of M.P.L.R.C. vide order dated 26.2.2020. No further action is being taken. 7. Section 248(2-A) of M.P.L.R.C. Relevant which is required to be seen : “(2-A) If any person continues in unauthorised occupation or possession of land for more than seven days after the date of order of ejectment under sub-section (1), then without prejudice to the fine that may be imposed thereunder the Sub-Divisional Officer shall cause him to be apprehended and shall send him with a warrant to be confined in a civil person for a period of fifteen days in case of first ejectment and (six months) in case of second or subsequent ejectment: Provided that no action under this sub-section shall be taken-- (i) unless a notice is issued calling upon such person to appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on a day to be specified in the notice and to show cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison; (ii) In respect of encroachments on Government and Nazul lands of the settlement of which the Government have issued orders from time-to time : Provided further that the sub-Divisional Officer may order the release of such person from detention before the expiry of the period mentioned in the warrant if he is satisfied that the unauthorised possession has been vacated : Provided also that no woman shall be arrested or detained under this sub-section.” 8. The petitioners have stated that no further proceedings of removal of encroachment is being taken up by the authorities. The provisions 248(2-A) of M.P.L.R.C. has specifically says that the S.D.O. is having powers to take up the matter and can get executed the order passed by the Tahsildar. In such circumstances, petitioner is directed to approach the concerning S.D.O. by filing an application for under section 248(2-A) of M.P.L.R.C. and if such application is filed within seven working days from today the S.D.O. is directed to take up the matter and decide the same in accordance with law. This Court has not commented upon the merits of the case. Petition stands disposed of.