Kuldeep Lashkar vs State Of M.P. & Others

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19

outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated

26/06/2020 (Annexure P-1) in case No. Nazul, 01/B-121/2020 -2021 passed by Sub Divisional Officer whereby petitioner has been restrained from

constructing over the disputed property.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is title holder of land bearing survey No. 1042/6, new survey No. 2377 and 2378 situated within the municipal

area Vidisha (M.P.). Petitioner is in possession of the aforesaid land since time of grandfather and father. Name of the petitioner is recorded in the

revenue record. For the purpose of determining the real controversy, Civil Suit No. 61A/2002 was filed which was decreed in favor of the petitioner.

Thereafter, First Appeal No. 8A/2008 was filed by the respondents which was dismissed and thereafter Second Appeal No. 564/2008 was filed

against the first appeal order. Review Petition No. 1360/2019 was filed and vide order dated 28/11/2019 correction of survey number was allowed. It

is submitted that the competent civil court as well as the appellate court determined the right and title of the petitioner as Bhumiswami over the

disputed property, therefore, such impugned order could not have been passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of bringing to the notice of the court below, the aforesaid impugned order has been passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment reported in Maya Lalchandani Vs Board of Revenue, 2009 (3) MPLJ 660 to

contend that Revenue Court has no power to grant injunction and the power rests with the Civil Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State has opposed the prayer and submitted that orders of the Civil Court as well as the

Appellate Court were not produced before the Court of Tehsildar, therefore, the impugned order came to be passed.

Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that title stands concluded in favour of the petitioner by

the civil Court as well as appellate Court, it would appropriate to set-aside the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 26/06/2020 and accordingly it is

set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the SDO/ respondent No.3 for rehearing. Respondent No.3 is directed to issue notice to the concerned

parties and fix a date for hearing and after considering the judgment of the civil court and the appellate Court, pass a reasoned and speaking order as

expeditiously as possible.

With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of finally.