IQBAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of facts and law are involved in these matters, with the consent of parties, these matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. Facts are taken from W.P. No. 7590/2012. The petitioner has challenged the orders Annexures P-1 and P-2. Admittedly, the orders are passed by the review authorities. Learned senior counsel submits that no doubt that statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no impediment in entertaining this petition. He submits that this petition needs to be entertained because order Annexure P-1 is passed by an incompetent authority and it is without jurisdiction. To elaborate these points, learned senior counsel submits that in the bottom of Annexure P-1 (Page 16) the hand written words are "N.T.". He submits that this denotes "Nayab Tahsildar". Accordingly, he submits that it is issued by Nayab Tahsildar, whereas Tahsildar is the competent authority. Learned senior counsel by placing heavy reliance on Section 248 of Mahdya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, submits that as per proviso of said section, the powers under section 248 of the said Code cannot be exercised regarding an encroachment made in Madhya Bharat Region before 15th August 1950. On these points it is stated that order is without jurisdiction and, therefore, there is no impediment to entertain this petition directly. On a specific question by the Bench regarding any documentary evidence to show that the petitioners have occupied the said land before 15th August, 1950, learned senior counsel relied on Annexure P-5 dated 03.07.2012. The said reply of petitioners only shows that their stand is that the land in question is in the possession of petitioners since the time of their ancestors. However, this document does not show any date from which they are allegedly in possession of the land in question. There is no other material/document in the possession to show that petitioners are in occupation before 15th August, 1950. Thus, there is no clinching material in favour of the aforesaid stand and, therefore, at this stage, I am unable to hold that the orders impugned are without jurisdiction by operation of Clause 248 [Proviso (ii)].

(2.) SHRI Newaskar, learned Dy. Government Advocate submits that order is passed by Tahsildar. By referring to same document Annexrue P-1 in the first portion, it is stated that it is signed by the Tahsildar. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the Nayab Tahsildar is competent to initiate the proceedings. Thus, there is a factual dispute whether by Annexure P-1 the proceedings are initiated by Tahsildar or Nayab Tahsildar. These disputed questions need not to be examined at this stage. Apart from this, the order Annexure P-1 is passed in February, 2012. It was open for the petitioners to assail it before the competent authority under the MPLRC. Even in cases where orders/proceedings are without jurisdiction, the petitioner can file an appeal and raise objection before the appellate authority. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, I am not impressed with the argument that this petition be directly entertained. In view of disputed questions of facts, this is not a fit case where writ petitions are required to be entertained. Accordingly, I declined interference. Petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy under the MPLRC. It be noted that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. With the aforesaid, petitions stand disposed of.