MAAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Sec. 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 against the order dtd. 9/3/2022 passed in W.P.No.4614/2022; whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. Facts of the case, as noted by the learned judge of the writ Court in paragraphs 2 and 3 are as hereunder:-

(2.) After appreciating the documents filed by the petitioner on record, the learned judge, without issuing notice to the respondents, has dismissed the writ petition in limine which is assailed by the petitioner in this writ appeal. During the course of hearing the respondent/State was also directed to file reply to the petition and State's reply is also available on record.

(3.) Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the learned judge of the writ Court has not appreciated the documents filed on record in their proper prospective and without even waiting for the reply from the State Government, the petition has been dismissed in limine. Counsel has submitted that even in the reply filed by the State Government in this writ appeal, the State Government has admitted in paragraph 3(b) that since Badri Singh and Chandra Singh were not the true owners, therefore, any proceedings initiated in pursuant to the notice dtd. 18/8/1983 are vitiated. Thus, counsel has submitted that on the aforesaid admission in the reply itself, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside,.