Munnalal Prajapati vs State Of M.P. & Others

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been taken up through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.

The present petition is being filed being aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent no.3, whereby he has proceeded in the matter without taking due course of provisions as provided under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code or any other law. It is submitted that the respondent no.3 and 4 have post the threats to the petitioner to entangle him in false case under the S.C.S.T. Act. It is alleged that the petitioner has purchased the property from one Ranjana Sharma. Copy of the sale deed is enclosed along with the petitioner. It is argued that the three sale deeds have been executed; first in the year 1994 by Birkha, second in the year 2011 by Bikesh, Mahesh and Rajesh and thereafter third in the year 2019 Ranjana Sharma has executed a sale deed to Munnalal Prajapati. It is submitted that by virtue of sale deed the petitioner is bonafide purchaser of the property and his name has also been entered into the revenue records, but now the proceedings have been initiated by the respondent-Tahsildar on the ground that the property is restricted from sale and is a government property, therefore, has tried to forcefully take the possession of the property from the petitioner and has also given oral threatening that in case the land is not returned then false case may be registered against him. It is submitted that he has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of VimlaBen Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and others, (2008) 4 SCC 649, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that no person can be deprived of his property otherwise than the authority of law. He submits that only grievance in the petition is that the respondents authorities may be directed to take the proper recourse of law or to initiate any proceedings in accordance with law against the petitioner in case they are of the opinion that the property belongs to the State Government and was restricted from sale.

Per contra counsel for the State has opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner is having a remedy to approach the concerning Civil Courts on the strength of the documents and no relief can be granted to him under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Several disputed questions of facts are involved in the petition that cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser on the strength of the sale deeds on the basis of which his name is already been entered into the revenue records, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court if the State Authorities are of the opinion that the property in question was restricted from sale property then they may take appropriate action in accordance with the prevailing laws to get the property back from the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the case. The only direction given by the Court is that the authorities may take any action in accordance with law. The State Authorities are free to take action against the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.