Ram Niwas Pandey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Vishal Mishra, J

The present petition is been filed challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 06.10.2021 passed by respondent no.3 whereby, he has imposed an excess penalty amounting to Rs.66,87,840/- on the ground that the petitioner has encroached upon an area of 1084 sq. feet according to the R.I. report and was further directed to remove the encroachment within a period of three days. It is alleged that in the year 1998, respondent/Revenue authorities allotted lease (Patta) in favour of petitioner and his parents admeasuring area 800 sq. ft. each situated at Ward No.4 in front of Municipal Council Umariya, District Umariya (M.P.) under the Rajeev Ashray Yojna and since then after constructing the house over the aforesaid land, he is residing.

The proceedings under Section 248(1) of M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 were initiated by the Tehsildar, Bandhavgarh, District Umariya and the final order was passed on 31.12.2007. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has deposited the penalty amount of Rs.300/- which was imposed by the Tehsildar but thereafter, no action has been taken by the authorities for a considerable period regarding removal of encroachment. It is alleged that the property which was granted on lease to the petitioner is situated in Survey No.1605 and the impugned order has been passed with respect to the same survey number. Certain photographs have been annexed along with the petition to demonstrate that the petitioner has constructed a house over the aforesaid property and is residing there for more than 35 years. In such circumstances, the order impugned is passed directing for deposition of penalty amount and also to vacate the land in question is perse illegal.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer and has drawn attention of this court to the order dated 31.12.2007 passed under the proceedings under Section 248(1) of M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959. It is submitted that apart from the land which has been allotted to the petitioner by way of lease (patta) he has encroached upon the part of the land bearing Survey/Plot No.1065/1d which has been encroached upon 560 sq. ft.. The report which was submitted by the Patwari and in pursuance to the same, the order dated 31.12.2007 was passed and clearly reflects that the petitioner is holding the area of 560 sq. ft. of land by way of encroachment. The order was passed in the year 2007 and the petitioner has virtually admitted the encroachment by depositing the fine amount of Rs.300/- No challenge to the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Tehsildar under Section 248 (1) of M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 proceedings made by the petitioner. Petitioner has not vacated the aforesaid premises in the year 2007. In pursuance to the aforesaid order and is still in possession of the property as per the contentions therefore, the order impugned has been passed by the respondent authorities.

In such circumstances, there is no illegality committed by the authorities in passing the impugned order. The area which has been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order is different from the area which was allotted by way of Patta to the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner was allotted land under the Rajeev Ashray Yojna, 1998, 800 sq. ft of land in plot 1065 sq ft. in the name of the petitioner as well his parents total 1600 sq. ft. of land was allotted to the petitioner. The proceedings under Section 248 (1) of M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 was initiated against the petitioner and the final order was passed on 31.12.2007. The aforesaid order was never put to challenge by the petitioner on contrary, petitioner has accepted the aforesaid order and has deposited the fine amount imposed by the authorities amounting to Rs.300/-on 02.02.2008.

In such circumstances, the order dated 31.12.2007 was executed by the petitioner without there being any challenge to the aforesaid order, the encroachment of the petitioner upon the aforesaid land is clearly reflected.

The impugned order is passed in pursuance to the order passed in the year 2007 therefore, no illegality is committed by the authorities while passing the impugned order. The petitioner fails to demonstrate the fact that the property in question on the basis of which order impugned has been passed and the allotment of the property by way of Patta to the petitioner are one and the same. On the contrary, the order dated 31.12.2007 clearly reflects, the property to be a different property and encroachment upon 560 sq. ft. of land was considered by the authorities.

In such circumstances, without there being any challenge to the order passed in the year 2007 and proceedings initiated under Section 248 (1) of M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 no relief can be extended to the petitioner in the present petition.

Petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.