Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 8 (MP)

Dhannalal v. State of M. P.

2025-01-06

PRANAY VERMA

body2025
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the notice dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.5, the Revenue Inspector, Circle-03, Tehsil Sanwer, District Indore intimating them to be present at the spot at the time of fixing the boundary marks for broadening of the Government road going through survey No.354/3/2, 354/2/2 area 0.203 hectare. 2. As per the petitioners, petitioner No.1, Dhannalal and Bhagirath, father of petitioners No.2 to 4 were allotted patta on 30.12.2002 of survey No.354/2, Village Muradpura, Tehsil Sanwer, District Indore measuring 1.000 hectare under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 in Bhumiswami rights. They were in possession of the land ever since then. Upon death of Bhagirath, petitioners No.2 to 4 have been in possession. By the impugned notice dated 12.11.2024, the petitioners have been intimated by respondent No.5 that respondent No.6 has been granted permission to build a 9 metre wide and 218.72 metre long road to their township passing through land bearing survey No.354/3/2, 354/2/2 and that they should remain present on 15.11.2024 for the purpose of fixing of the boundary marks. 3. As per the petitioners, in the garb of the proceedings, their crops are being destroyed by the respondents and their land is being encroached upon. The permission to build the road was granted by the Additional Collector, District Indore, respondent No.2 by order dated 18.10.2024. However, the petitioners were never served any notice of the proceedings. They have not even been provided copy of the order. By way of the impugned proceedings, the respondents are interfering with their peaceful possession over their land in an illegal manner and in violation of their fundamental rights. The impugned communication hence deserves to be quashed. 4. Reply has been filed by respondents No.1 to 5/State as well as by respondent No.6. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that respondent No.6 is a licensed colonizer. It is the owner of certain lands total measuring 4.027 hectare. It is developing a colony named "Gurukripa Phase-I" in Gram Muradpura, Tehsil Sanwer, District Indore. It moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sanwer stating that it is required to connect the colony through Government land bearing survey No.354/2 and 354/3 and wants to construct the same permanently. It is the owner of certain lands total measuring 4.027 hectare. It is developing a colony named "Gurukripa Phase-I" in Gram Muradpura, Tehsil Sanwer, District Indore. It moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sanwer stating that it is required to connect the colony through Government land bearing survey No.354/2 and 354/3 and wants to construct the same permanently. Permission was sought to construct a 30 feet wide and 90 feet long road over the aforesaid land. On the said application, the Sub Divisional Officer directed the Tehsildar to enquire into the matter and to submit a report. The Tehsildar submitted his report on 27.06.2024 which recommended construction of the road. The S.D.O. then by order dated 27.6.2024 directed the Halka Patwari to submit a report. In compliance thereof the report was submitted. 5. Thereafter, by order dated 3.7.2024 the S.D.O. stated that due to construction of road there would be reduction in area of land of survey No.354/2 belonging to the petitioners hence compensation would be provided to them from government land of survey No.354/3. It was stated that approximately 0.068 hectare of land from petitioners' survey No.354/2 would be used for road construction for which equivalent land would be allotted. In accordance with the order passed by the S.D.O., the Collector by order dated 1.8.2024 permitted change of user of the land being used for construction of road along with other land. Based on the order of the Collector, the Additional Collector by order dated 18.10.2024 granted permission to respondent No.6 to construct a road for its colony. Thereafter, the revenue records were corrected accordingly allocating an equivalent area out of Government land survey No.353/3 for compensating the area of petitioners' survey No.354/2 being used for construction of the road. It is in pursuance to the said proceedings that the impugned communication has been issued to the petitioners. Since they have been allocated other equivalent land in lieu of their land, no prejudice is caused to them and no rights are effected. On the other hand, if the road is not constructed, respondent No.6 would face great difficulty and inconvenience. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7.7. In the report dated 27.6.2024 of the Tehsildar, Sanwer itself, it has been mentioned that survey No.354/2 is land of pattedars i.e. of the petitioners. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7.7. In the report dated 27.6.2024 of the Tehsildar, Sanwer itself, it has been mentioned that survey No.354/2 is land of pattedars i.e. of the petitioners. Thus, the contention of respondent No.6 that the petitioners do not have any title over survey No.354/2 cannot be accepted. On application of respondent No.6 for constructing a road over Government land proceedings were initiated in which it was held that for construction of such a road, adjoining land of the land owners including that of the petitioners bearing survey No.354/2 shall be required. Once such an opinion had been formed and a proposal had been made for utilizing/acquiring the land of the petitioners, then it was imperative for them to have been noticed for participating in the proceedings. Since the petitioners are Bhumiswamis of their land individual notices were required to be issued to them. Merely because a publication was made by the Tehsildar prior to submission of his report, it would not be a substitute for the requirement of issuance of individual notices. The petitioners being Bhumiswamis of their land, if part of the same was proposed to be utilized / acquired, then it was absolutely mandatory for them to have been afforded opportunity of hearing which has admittedly not been done right from the stage of reports prepared by the Revenue Inspector / Halka Patwari up to the Collector. The entire proceedings are hence in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that inspite of acquiring total 0.068 hectare of land of survey No.354/2 belonging to the petitioners, they are not prejudiced since equal Government land has been alloted to them. However, in my opinion, the said contention is wholly unacceptable. It is not for the respondents to unilaterally acquire a part of the land of the petitioners and to allot them certain other Government land of which they are not the owners. If any such proceedings for acquiring land of the petitioners and allocating certain other land to them is to be taken, then the same cannot be done without express consent of the petitioners and without hearing them. The petitioners in this petition have specifically objected to such exchange of their land. If any such proceedings for acquiring land of the petitioners and allocating certain other land to them is to be taken, then the same cannot be done without express consent of the petitioners and without hearing them. The petitioners in this petition have specifically objected to such exchange of their land. Thus, without hearing them, the same could not have been done and that too could have been only by following the due process of law. 9. The orders which have been passed in the present proceedings are unilateral and without participation of the petitioners. The revenue records have also been altered without their consent and behind their back. The same are hence not binding upon them. It is also noted that in the entire proceedings, the petitioners were not even impleaded as parties and the final order was passed by the Collector. 10. Another aspect which needs to be taken note of is that under section 237(1) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, it is only the unoccupied land which can be set apart for the purposes as stated therein. The land of the petitioners cannot be said to be unoccupied land since it is in their occupation. The applicability of section 237(1) of the Code, 1959 was also required to be considered. Moreover, in the patta (Annexure P/1) of the petitioners, it was stated that in case the land being allotted on Bhumiswami rights is required for any scheme, then the same can be taken by issuing notices to pattedars and the patta can be cancelled. Thus, prior to acquiring any land of the petitioners, under the terms of the patta itself, notices were required to be issued to them which has not been done. The entire proceedings taken by the respondents in respect of the land of the petitioners hence cannot be countenanced. 11. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. The impugned communication dated 12.11.2024 is accordingly quashed and it is further held that all the orders passed in the proceedings carried out by the respondents including the final order dated 1.8.2024 passed by the Collector, District Indore are not binding upon the petitioners and do not affect their rights over their land bearing survey No.354/2. The respondents have no right to interfere with or make any construction over petitioners' land. The respondents have no right to interfere with or make any construction over petitioners' land. They would however be at liberty to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law and in view of the observations as made hereinabove. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.