Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1362 (MP)

Moolchand v. State of M. P.

2022-11-16

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2022
ORDER 1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders dated 13.5.2022, 13.12.2021 and 5.8.2019. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the land bearing survey No.239 and the respondent No.5 is the owner of the land bearing survey No.242. Both the lands are adjoining situated at village Barmandal, Tahsil Sardarpur District Dhar. 3. The husband of the respondent No.5 filed a civil suit against the petitioner seeking a permanent injunction. The trial Court passed a judgment and decree dated 18.9.2015 granting injunction against the petitioner and directed not to damage the temporary partition made from soil which is formed in between 239 and 242. 4. According to the petitioner in the year 2017-18, the respondent started interfering with the possession of the petitioner and has encroached the land of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the encroachment made by the respondent No.5, the petitioner filed an application under section 129 seeking proper demarcation of the land. The said application was allowed and thereafter a demarcation was held and after spot inspection, order of demarcation was passed on 6.6.2018. The petitioner filed an application under section 250 before the Tahsildar for restoration of his possession. 5. The said application was dismissed by Tahsildar holding that there is already an injunction passed by the civil Court therefore, no order can be passed for restoration of the possession. The said order was challenged before the SDO by the petitioner. The Sub-divisional Officer dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the Commissioner, Indore Division Indore. He filed WP No.14749/2021. The said writ petition was disposed off directing the Commissioner to decide the second appeal expeditiously. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed whereby, the second appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 6. It is not in dispute that the trial Court has passed the order of permanent injunction against the present petitioner. All the Revenue Authorities have declined to pass the order of restoration of the possession of the petitioner as there is already an order of injunction by the civil Court against the petitioner. 6. It is not in dispute that the trial Court has passed the order of permanent injunction against the present petitioner. All the Revenue Authorities have declined to pass the order of restoration of the possession of the petitioner as there is already an order of injunction by the civil Court against the petitioner. While assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injunction by the civil Court was only in respect of not to interfere with the possession of the parties and the parties were directed to remain in possession of their land, therefore, the Revenue Authorities ought to have examined the application under section 250 of the Code on merits as the petitioner was improperly dispossessed. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Revenue Authority, Tahsildar declining to pass the order of restoration of possession on the ground that there is injunction order passed by the civil Court against the petitioner. The said order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority. 8. In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed.