RAMASHANKAR KEWAT Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking review of order dtd. 24/02/2020 passed in M.P.No.816/2020.

(2.) The petitioners are seeking review mainly on the ground that they are residing over the land in question since last 30-40 years and as per the Gazette notification dtd. 07/09/2017 they are entitled to be allotted the land in their favour. It is claimed by the petitioners that this aspect has not been considered by the Court and rejected the petition, although under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Gramo Me Ki Dakhalrahit Bhoomi (Vishesh Upbandh), Adhniam 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniam 1970') petitioner's claim can be considered for allotment of land.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 592 parties being (Board of Control for Cricket, India and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others) in which Supreme Court has observed that review is maintainable when the Court has passed an order under misconception of law and according to him, this Court without considering the fact that allotment can also be made in favour of petitioners under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Gramo Me Ki Dakhalrahit Bhoomi (Vishesh Upbandh), Adhniam 1970 has passed the order. He has also placed reliance upon a decision reported in 2011 2 MPLJ 399 (Kamla Bai Vs. State of M.P and others). Likewise, in a case of Brahaspati Bai Vs. State of M.P and others, 2009 1 MPLJ 542, it is held that if a person is land less person and constructed the house over the land of the State Government Patta can be allotted under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Nagriya Kshetro ke Bhoomiheen Vyakti (Pattadhriti Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniam 1984 (for short 'Adhiniam 1984'). Further, in the case of Kailashchand Vs. State of M.P.and others, reported in 2011 2 MPLJ 554, it is observed by the Court that for Nazool land also patta can be allotted. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that order passed by this Court deserves to be recalled and fresh hearing should be done.