JUBEDA BI Vs. COMMISSIONER, INDORE DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 22/07/2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.1 (Additional Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore), dated 01/03/2012 (Annexure-P/2) passed by respondent No.2 (SDO, Revenue, Indore) and dated 03/03/2010 (Annexure-P/3) passed by respondent No.3 (Tehsildar, Indore).

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the respondent No.6- Sakina Bi has filed an application under Section 178 of M.P. Land Revenue Code for mutation partition for the land bearing survey Nos.1114, 115, 116, 1127, 1142, 1146, 1159, 1160, 1164 total rakba 2.468 hectare, thereafter, notices were issued by the Tehsildar, Indore but some of the parties did not appear, therefore, the Tehsildar has proceeded the matter ex parte against them and found that Yasin S/o Late Daud (respondent No.4 herein), Islam S/o Late Daud (respondent No.5. Herein) and Sakina Bi Wd/o Late Daud (respondent No.6 herein) are in possession of the disputed land as Bhumiswami and Khatoon Bi and her family members were not in possession of the land in dispute and their part of land bearing survey Nos.204/2, 214, 215/2, rakba 2.691 hectare falls under Indore Development Authority at Scheme No.134, therefore, they got the compensation, therefore, they are not in possession over the said land. At that relevant point of time, no one came forward to oppose such partition, therefore, the land rakba 2.468 hectare was partitioned. Thereafter, respondents had filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.4 and others filed a writ petition No.5968/2009 before this Court and vide order dated 04/05/2010, this Court directed that the learned trial Court shall dispose of the suit at the earliest within a period of six months, till then, parties are directed to maintain status-quo, as it exists today. Thereafter, R.P. No.184/2012 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 17/08/2012 and the status- quo order was further extended for a further period of six months with direction that if the Court below finds that the plaintiffs are responsible for the delay, then, interim order dated 17/08/2012 shall come to an end. Therefore, being aggrieved by the orders impugned mentioned above, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the concerned Authorities are without application of mind and contrary to law. It is argued that impugned orders suffers from procedural irregularity and also suffers from misinterpretation. It is also submitted that first appellate authority and second appellate authority has not gone into the merits of the case on account of status-quo order dated 04/05/2010. Learned Tehsildar has partitioned the suit property and the first appellate authority and second appellate authority should have set-aside the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 03/06/2010 and should be remanded back to Tehsildar to be heard on merits. It is prayed that impugned orders may be quashed by allowing this writ petition.