RAMNATH LODHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this PIL against the order of exchange of Government land in regard to survey number 2470 situate at village Jaraya, Tahsil Pichhore, District Shivpuri passed by the Collector in favour of respondents 3 to 6. Respondents 3 to 6 applied for exchange of land. The Nazul Tahsildar objected to exchange of the land. The Collector vide order dated 26/2/2001 rejected the application. Against the aforesaid order, respondents 3 to 6 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the matter back to the Collector. Thereafter, vide order dated 9/6/2003 the Collector permitted exchange of the land.

(2.) THE petitioner has pleaded in the petition that the Government land which was exchanged with the land of respondents 3 to 6 was not an agricultural land and it is a valuable Nazul land situated adjacent to Highway. Hence, the order is illegal. Respondents 3 to 6 have filed their return raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this petition. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because earlier the petitioner himself alongwith other persons filed an appeal against the order of exchange passed by the Collector and that appeal was dismissed. It is further submitted by them that the petitioner himself is an encroacher and he has made encroachment over the Government land and the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 31/12/2012 ordered the Tahsildar for conducting an enquiry against the petitioner in regard to encroachment. The State Authorities in their return opposed the petition. They pleaded that the order of exchange was passed by the Collector after considering the relevant facts of the case and after a period of ten years, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of exchange of land passed by the Collector was against the provisions of Clause 20 -N of the Revenue Book Circular. He further submitted that in accordance with section 237 of the MP Land Revenue Code, the nature of the land could not be changed. The land of the Government which was exchanged was not an agricultural land. Hence, the order of exchange of land is illegal. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Meghwal Samaj Shiksha Samiti Vs. Lakh Singh, (2011) 11 SCC 800 as also on a judgment of this Court in Banwarilal Gupta Vs. State of MP, 2002 (1) MPLJ 420. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 3 to 6 has contended that this PIL filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because the petitioner himself challenged the order of exchange of land in appeal which was dismissed. He further submits that the petitioner has filed the present PIL for his own benefit. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments :