Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 917 (MP)

Ramesh Chandra Choubey v. State of M. P.

2022-07-09

SHEEL NAGU

body2022
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: " ( i ) that, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction to the respondent concerned SDO (Revenue) Nagod Distt. Satna to allot 5 acre agricultural land as per the policy of Government within a certain period considering the documents/records made available by the petitioner to his right accrued him. (ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed including the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice 2. The claim of the petitioner ostensibly appears to be that he has been deprived of his rightful claim over 5 acres of land in terms of the provisions of Revenue Book Circular Section IV, Serial No.3. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that under the aforesaid provision of Revenue Book Circular, 5 acres of land was allotted to father of the petitioner by virtue of being freedom fighter. Subsequently, the averments in the petition reveal that the Collector by order dated 28.8.1981 cancelled the said allotment by assigning reason that the name of father of petitioner does not figure in the list of freedom fighters at Jabalpur. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P. No.521/2015 assailing the inaction on the part of authorities to extend him the benefit of the said provision of Revenue Book Circular. The said petition by order dated 21.1.2015 (Annexure P/6) was disposed of in the following terms : "21/1/2015 Shri D.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P. Rai, learned P.L. for the respondent/State. Assailing inaction of the respondents in the matter of grant of land being freedom fighter as per Revenue Book Circular (Annexure P-11) after cancellation of the grant made to him at Jabalpur and non-grant at Satna, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner. On perusal of the record, it appears that by order Annexure P/1, being the freedom fighter, the land was allotted to the father of the petitioner at Jabalpur but after issuing notice it was found that he is not a resident of Jabalpur, therefore, the said grant was cancelled. On perusal of the record, it appears that by order Annexure P/1, being the freedom fighter, the land was allotted to the father of the petitioner at Jabalpur but after issuing notice it was found that he is not a resident of Jabalpur, therefore, the said grant was cancelled. Petitioner submitted an application (Annexure P/12) to the Revenue Secretary to make the grant to him being the dependant of the freedom fighter at Satna, at the place of residence of freedom fighter which has not been duly considered. However, prayer is made to dispose of this petition with a direction to consider the his representation in terms of the Revenue Book Circular or as per the policy of the State Government. Learned P.L. is having no objection in the matter of consideration of the representation. In view of the foregoing, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/Revenue Secretary to consider the request of petitioner in the matter of grant of land at Satna i.e. the place of residence of freedom fighter being the dependant of the freedom fighter in terms of the Revenue Book Circular or any other circular issued in this regard. If petitioner is found entitled to get the land it may be allotted otherwise appropriate reasoned order may be passed affording an opportunity to him by respondents within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of." 4. Thereafter since no compliance was made of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a Contempt Case No.1004 of 2015 which was also finally disposed of on 5.5.2017 (Annexure P/8) with a direction that in case the petitioner furnishes requisite information, the authority shall consider and decide the case. 4.1 Thereafter, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the requisite information was supplied vide Annexure P/9 before the SDO, Nagod, District Satna but to no avail. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. From the aforesaid factual matrix what comes out loud and clear is that after the allotment of land made in favour of the father of the petitioner, the said order of allotment was cancelled on 28.8.1981 for certain reasons, which may or may not be justified. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present petition praying for the aforesaid reliefs. 5. From the aforesaid factual matrix what comes out loud and clear is that after the allotment of land made in favour of the father of the petitioner, the said order of allotment was cancelled on 28.8.1981 for certain reasons, which may or may not be justified. However, what is pertinent to note is that this order dated 28.8.1981 was neither challenged by the father of petitioner during his life time nor has been challenged by the petitioner. 6. Unless the order dated 28.8.1981 is successfully challenged, the petitioner cannot succeed in the present petition since the entire claim of the petitioner is based on the fact of valid allotment of land under the Revenue Book Circular in favour of his deceased father. 7. In view of above, this Court cannot assist the petitioner and, therefore declines interference. 8. However, the petitioner is free to assail the order of cancellation of allotment of land under the aforesaid provisions of Revenue Book Circular in favour of the petitioner, which was passed on 28.8.1981 as per para 5.3 of this petition. It is made clear that in case the challenge is made within a period of 90 days from today before the Commissioner, Revenue Division, Rewa then the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority on its own merits in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid liberty, petition stands disposed of.