SHAKUNTALABAI Vs. CHATUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the case of the petitioner is as under:-

(2.) Shri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as per section 110 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, it was obligatory on the part of Tahsildar to issue notices to all person who may be interested in the matter. He submits that as per rules made under the Code also, the advertisement and notices are required to be issued/published in a particular manner. The petitioner was a necessary party and was very much interested being the owner of the land but he was not heard by the Tahsildar, which vitiates the entire proceedings. By placing heavy reliance on Page 8 of the rejoinder, it is stated that the document makes it crystal clear that in the record of the Tahsildar only one document i.e. advertisement is enclosed and no other document finds place, which shows that no notices have been issued to the person interested. He further submits that no material is available to show that advertisement was fixed in the places it is required to be fixed as per the provisions of MPLRC and rules made thereunder. By relying on various documents he submits that power of attorney is given to Hemsingh for a limited purpose and no right was given to him to sell the property.

(3.) Per Contra, Shri K.S. Tomar, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 3 and 4, supported the orders Annexure P-1 and P-2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submit that as per section 111 of MPLRC, the remedy for the petitioner is to file a civil suit. The petitioner has already chosen to file a civil suit and accordingly, no case is made out for interference by this Court. They relied on section 115 and 116 of the MPLRC and judgments of Supreme Court B.K. Muniraju Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2008 4 SCC 451 and Sakhi Gopal Dixit Vs. Board of Revenue and another, 2009 5 MPHT 282.