HARAK SINGH CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of R.P. No. 148/12 and W.P. Nos. 2180/12, 2240/12, 3219/12, 3584/12, 3586/12, 3587/12, 3704/12, 3705/12, 3706/12, 3792/12, 3895/12, 3896/12 and 3911/12. In all the petitions the relief prayed is identical and respondents are also one and the same. In the petition the prayer is to quash the notice dated 22-2-2012 issued by Tehsildar Nazool under section 248 of MPLRC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner in all the petitions are in occupation of the property in dispute which they have purchased from one Satya Narayan Kashyap vide registered sale-deed in the year 2002. It is submitted that since then petitioners are in occupation of the property in dispute as owner, therefore petitioners are not the encroachers. It is submitted that since the petitioners are the owners of the property in question, therefore respondents be restrained to take action on the basis of notice issued under section 248 of MPLRC.

(3.) Reply has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is alleged that the land bearing various survey Nos. situated at Village Sukhaliya was acquired by the State in the year 1963 for Industrial Training Institute. The total land which was acquired was 15.01 Acres. Award was passed in Case No. 02/62 and the compensation was paid by the State. It is submitted that initially Bhagirath was the owner of the property while petitioners are alleging that petitioners have purchased the property from Satya Narayan Kashyap while Satya Narayan Kashyap was never the owner of the property. It is alleged that Satya Narayan filed the civil suit in the Court of 7th Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore which was numbered as 105-A/03 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13-1-2004, against which an appeal was filed which was pending in the Court of 13th ADJ Indore as regular Appeal No. 3-A/04 and was dismissed vide judgment dated 4-2-2004. It is further submitted that second appeal No. 130/04 was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 19-7-2004. It is submitted that earlier also Satya Narayan filed a suit through power of attorney in the year 1989 which was numbered as 25-A/89 in the Court of 5th Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore and was dismissed vide judgment dated 5-8-1994. It is submitted that petitioners are having no title over the property in question. It is submitted that after issuance of notice issued under section 248 of MPLRC orders were passed and in compliance of that possession was also taken, but thereafter again the petitioners have encroached. It is submitted that petition be dismissed.