FATIMA BI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed in this petition shall also govern the disposal of connected W.P. No. 8765/2007, Smt. Fatima Bi (dead) through LRs v. State of M.P. and others since both the petitions have been heard analogously. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:--

(2.) Brief facts as per the case of the petitioner are that a patta dated 26-8-1948 (Annexure P/2) was granted in favour of one Mohd. Haneef whose widow is deceased petitioner in regard to agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 1677, 1699 and 1733, total area 7.10 acres and eventually he started cultivating upon the land which was allotted to him on the basis of patta although according to the return of the Government, this patta is a forged document. The stand which has been taken by the State Government in the return in connected W.P. No. 8765/2007 para 4 is that when the patta was alleged to have been executed the land in question was recorded as forest land in the revenue record and in case of exchange, transfer of otherwise procedure laid down under the Rewa Raj Darbar was in force prior to enactment of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the Code). Further it has been averred in same para of the return that the land which has been leased out bearing Khasra Nos. 1677/6, 1699 and 1713 was the forest land as defined under section 29 of the Rewa Forest Act and for allotment, exchange and otherwise, there was a provision in the Rewa Raj Darbar order, defined under section 41 and under section 43(Ga) and further the stand of State Government in the return is that patta can only be granted to a Kashtkar. According to the State, at the relevant point of time the husband of the deceased petitioner was not a Kashtkar at Sohagpur and he was only serving as a Patwari. Since husband of the deceased petitioner was working as Patwari at the relevant point of time, he misused his power and in collusion with Revenue Inspector and SLR prepared a patta and occupied forest land without any authority. However, it be noted that in order to substantiate the said stand in the return that the land was a forest land, no document has been filed in that regard. That apart, as argued by Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Advocate the husband of the deceased petitioner was serving on the post of Patwari, therefore, no patta could be granted in his favour. But, where is the said bar, neither there is averment in the return nor any law has been shown to me by learned Government Advocate. Indeed, there was no bar that a person serving on the post of Patwari cannot be a Kashtkar. No law in this regard has been shown to me. The land was forest no material has been placed on record.

(3.) Coming back to the case of petitioner, somewhere in the year 1962 upon some part of the agricultural land admeasuring 4 acres which was given to the petitioner's husband on patta, the State of M.P. and its functionaries constructed a hostel building for the students of Mining Polytechnic Institute for their residential purpose. Eventually, the deceased petitioner's husband filed Civil Suit No. 54-A/1973 in the Court of Civil Judge, class I, Umariya Camp, Shahdol (Mohd. Haneef v. State of M.P.) for declaration of Bhumiswami right and for restoration of possession. This suit was decreed on 22-12-1973 by holding that plaintiff (husband of deceased petitioner) is the Bhumiswami of Khasra No. 1699, area 1.25 acres and Khasra No. 1677, area 2.75 acres while deciding issue No. 1. A decree was passed directing the State of M.P. to pay compensation in accordance to law and in case the compensation is not paid, the plaintiff (husband of deceased petitioner) shall be entitled to execute the decree of possession.