Chhatrapal Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed complaining the arbitrary action on the part of respondents No.3 to 7.

The petitioner claims himself to be the title holder of the disputed land i.e. survey Nos.162 min 2 and survey no.172 min 2 situated at Patwari Circle No.99, Village Vikrampur, Tahsil Morar, Distt. Gwalior. It is submitted that predecessor-in-title of the petitioner was one Sardarram who was the Bhumiswami of this land. Sardarram took loan against the disputed land but repaid the entire loan and thereafter the land in dispute was free from all encumbrances. After the death of Sardarram, the names of his successors i.e. Ganeshi and the petitioner were mutated in the revenue records. After the death of Ganeshi the names of sisters of the petitioner, namely Ramdulari, Gangadevi and Sudai @ Sudhri were also mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter all the sisters executed the sale-deeds in favour of the petitioner and thus the petitioner has become the sole owner of the land in dispute and the name of the petitioner is also mutated in the revenue records. The petitioner filed an application for carving out traverse and sub-traverse of the disputed land and the said application was allowed by the Additional Commissioner in Revenue Case No.32/2016-17/A3 and during these proceedings respondents No.3 to 7 did not raise any claim with regard to the nature of the disputed land. Thereafter the petitioner applied for diversion of the disputed land and deposited the diversion fee with the concerned authority. It is submitted that respondents No.5 and 6 are the Revenue Inspectors and respondent No.7 is the Patwari. They had also taken part in the proceeding for Batankan as they had prepared the report of Batankan and at the time of preparing the report they did not raise any objection about the nature of the land. After the Batankan process, the survey number of the government land became 162/1, whereas the survey number of the petitioner became 162/2. Thus, it is clear that the disputed land is survey No.162/2 which is not the government land and is a private land belonging to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the map of the village has been duly corrected according to the order of the Additional Tahsildar as no objections were filed by the side of the respondents. It is submitted that whenever the petitioner has tried to carry out the cultivation work in the land in dispute, then respondents No.3 to 7 have unauthorizedly restrained the petitioner from doing so and they are demanding illegal gratification of Rs. five lac. Vide the letter dated 21.5.2018 the respondents No.5 to 6 were authorized by the Additional Tahsildar, Morar, to submit the report in regard to survey Nos.162 and 172 along with other survey numbers, as a result of which, the respondents are authorized to submit a report with regard to the disputed property. It is submitted that respondents No.5 to 7 are under obligation to submit the actual report in the capacity of Revenue Inspector and Patwari, however, respondents No.5 to 7 have demanded illegal gratification and the petitioner has denied to pay the same, and therefore, respondents No.5 to 7 are creating all sorts of trouble. Thus, it is prayed that demand of illegal gratification by respondents No. 5 to 7 is bad and this Court should direct the respondents to work within the four corners of law.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has made specific allegation of demand of illegal gratification against respondents No.5 to 7, however, it appears that he has not approached either the S.P.E (Lokayukta) or EOW for redressal of his grievance because demand of illegal gratification is an offence and this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot look into the allegations of demand of illegal gratification.

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case and if the petitioner so desires, he can approach S.P.E (Lokayukta)/EOW by making the complaint of demand of illegal gratification. The liberty granted to the petitioner should not be construed that this Court has accepted the allegations made by the petitioner against respondents No.5 to 7. In case if the complaint is made, the authority concerned shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.