M/s. Qoign Builders vs Ramesh Chandra Kaushail

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—He is heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 30.3.13 (Annex. P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue Gwalior in Revision No. 1996-PBR/2012 affirming the order dated 23.4.12 passed by the Upper Collector, Bhopal in Revision No. 23/Revision/11-12 whereby the Collector has remitted back the matter to the Tehsildar to hold the proceedings of section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (in short ''the Code'') filed by respondent No. 1 and 2 in accordance with the procedure.

While affirming the order, the Board of Revenue has also observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the objections in the proceedings of section 250 of the Code against the demarcation carried out earlier on which the impugned proceedings of section 250 of the Code is based.

Having heard the counsel, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned orders. It is apparent that in compliance of the order of the Collector and the Board of Revenue, the proceedings u/s 250 of the Code is still pending before the Tehsildar and, in such premises, by filing the reply on behalf of the petitioner the alleged demarcation proceeding has also been challenged on the ground stated in the same and such grounds are to be examined in compliance of the impugned order after recording the evidence by the Tehsildar. It also appears from the papers available on the record that as soon as the summons for the date of hearing of aforesaid proceedings in the court of Tehsildar is received by the petitioners, on which, under some apprehension in their mind they have come to this court for appropriate direction to the Tehsildar not to take the possession of the disputed land and handover the same to respondents No. 1 and 2 in pending proceeding of the aforesaid revenue case of section 250 of the Code.

In the available circumstances, I am of the considered view that mere apprehension in the mind of the petitioner could not be a ground to grant any relief to the petitioner unless any specific cause of action is available to the petitioner to get any relief from this court. So, in such premises, I am not inclined to admit or issue any notice of this petition to the other side.

In the available circumstances, I am of the considered view that any authority like Tehsildar shall not proceed to take the possession of the disputed land unless the proceedings of section 250 of the Code is concluded by him and subject to final order of such proceeding such authority may take any steps to take possession of the disputed property from the petitioner and hand-over to respondents No. 1 and 2. In view of such approach, this petition does not require any specific order from this court. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation.