CHHATRAPAL SINGH TOMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation for issuing appropriate writ directing the State authorities to remove the encroachment and illegal construction over the land of survey No. 559 situated at Majara Khushal Ka Pura Mauja Ranhera, Tahsil Porsa District Morena.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel, on perusal of averments of petition as well as papers placed on record, we have found that after initiation of proceedings under Section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code (for brevity 'the Code'), the same was decided by the revenue authorities, according to which on the disputed land some encroachment of respondents No. 7 to 9 was found pursuant to that, direction to remove such encroachment was given simultaneously the fine of Rs. 700/- was also imposed on respondents No. 7 to 9. Now the petitioner has come to this Court praying that land in dispute is reserved for construction of pond but contrary to the purpose without any authority of law, respondents No. 7 to 9 are constructing the house over the aforesaid land and in spite the order u/s. 248 of the Code, the revenue authorities are not taking the appropriate steps to implement the aforesaid order for removal of the alleged encroachment.

(3.) We are of the considered view that when the authority of revenue sector has already by initiating the proceedings under Section 248 of the Code has passed the order against respondents No. 7 to 9 so now it is for the authority of revenue sector to implement the aforesaid order regarding removal of encroachment and no additional direction of this Court is required in the matter. If any of the subordinate revenue authority is not discharging the function in accordance with the procedure then the affected party has a right to file appropriate proceedings before the superior officer of the revenue department but in any case no direction could be given to the respondents authorities as prayed by the petitioner in the present petition because such authority had already decided the matter against respondents No. 7 to 9.