KHUMAN CHAND KOSHTA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition ordinarily should have proceeded before the learned single Judge. However, as the direction was issued by the Division Bench to the Collector to remove all the unauthorised structures on the Government land and the impugned action has been taken by the Revenue Authority in furtherance of that direction, coupled with the fact that the public interest litigation in which the direction was given to the Revenue Authority being Writ Petition No. 9464/2006 and Writ petition No. 14059/2009 are still being listed before the Division Bench for reporting compliance by the Revenue Authorities, it was deemed appropriate that the present petition should be heard along with the said public interest litigation to obviate any conflicting decision on the same subject -matter and also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

(3.) AS aforesaid, the Sub Divisional Officer in furtherance of the order passed in the public interest litigation issued notice for removal of structures occupied by the petitioners. The petitioners no doubt have challenged the said decision before the Commissioner by way of statutory appeal and the same is stated to be still pending. In the present writ petition, however, it is contended by the petitioners that the Sub Divisional Officer is acting in excess of jurisdiction to proceed against the structures which are not standing on the Government land. To buttress this submission, it is asserted by the petitioners that the land on which the offending structure is erected, has been purchased by the petitioners from the erstwhile owner in relation to whom land ceiling proceedings have been concluded. As a result, the said land continues, to be private land, and not Government land. This stand is taken in spite of the procedure for taking over possession of surplus land has been followed by the Ceiling Authority. It is, however, argued that the procedure for taking possession of surplus land was not in accordance with law. Therefore, in law, the possession of the subject land on which the structure is standing continues to be that of the private party. This argument though attractive at the first blush deserves to be stated to be rejected.