Siddharth Developers vs Collector. Collectorate Office Moti And Others

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24/02/2023(Annexure-P/5) whereby, the order of eviction has been passed under Section 248(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before passing the impugned order on 24/02/2023, notice was issued to the petitioner on 22/02/2023 and even without following the principle of natural justice, the impugned order has been passed. In such a situation, alternative remedy of filing an appeal is not a bar.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that miscellaneous petition under the M.P. High Court Rules itself is not maintainable against the order of eviction, which is an order passed by quasi judicial authority as the petitioner ought to have filed a writ petition, therefore, on this count alone, this petition deserves to be dismissed. He further submitted that the petitioner has not assailed the order of encroachment passed under the Case No.0047/A/68/2022-2023 whereby the petitioner has been declared to be an encroacher. Only the final order dated 24/02/2023 has been challenged in the present writ petition. Moreover, Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code provides for a statutory efficacious remedy of appeal which the petitioner has not availed. In the circumstances, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that as per the M.P High Court Rules, the miscellaneous petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that in an identical situation, the Coordinate Bench has admitted and granted interim relief in miscellaneous petition. It is a settled principles of law that if some mistake is committed the same cannot be repeated again and again. The petitioner has not filed the proceedings of the No.0047/A/68/2022-2023 nor the final order. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to find out as to whether any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner or not. In such circumstances, this Court refrains to entertain this miscellaneous petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail alternative remedy as available under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.