SHIV SHANKAR Vs. JAGGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Writ Petition petitioner seeks to challenge the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 19/4/2011 confirming the orders passed by courts below i.e. second appellate court's order dated 13/4/2010 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, first appellate court's order dated 2/2/2009 passed by Sub Divisional Officer and the order passed by the Tahsildar, Tahsil Junnardev, dated 13/10/2008.

(2.) FACTS necessary for disposal of this petition are to the effect that a revenue case No. 16/Aa -70/2006 -07 was registered by the Tahsildar on a complaint filed by Late Jagannath S/o Gopi Chamar against petitioner -Shivshankar S/o Bandhan Lodhi as regards illegal encroachment being done over the suit land admeasuring 18X20 sqft. falling in Mauza Palachaurai, Khasra No. 412/6, Tahsil Junnardev. The Tahsildar invoking jurisdiction under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code found proved the fact of encroachment by petitioner as complained by Late Jagannath and ordered for vacating the suit property. In the proceedings before the Tahsildar, petitioner did not file any documents as regards title over the land in question, instead he asserted that he is in possession over the land in question for last 33 years and, therefore, has acquired title by adverse possession. Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, as possession by encroachment is more than two years old. Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts, finding has been recorded that no documentary evidence was brought on record in support of assertion as regards possession over the land in question for last 33 years. Admittedly, the land in question belongs to respondents and, therefore, encroachment by petitioner was held to be illegal and he was ordered to vacate the land. This finding was confirmed by the first appellate court vide order dated 2/2/2009. Being aggrieved thereby, second appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. The second appellate court has again re -appreciated the entire evidence on record and confirmed the findings of the courts below. It has been found that admittedly petitioner has encroached upon the land in question, but in support of his assertion that he is in possession over the land for last 33 years, there is no documentary evidence on record. Finding recorded by the courts below that encroachment was two years old over the land admeasuring 18 X 20 sqft. by the petitioner was upheld by the second appellate court. As a matter of fact, while petitioner started digging the land in question to lay foundation over the aforesaid area of the ownership of Late Jagannath for raising boundary wall covering the aforesaid area to extend his area of plot adjacent to the aforesaid land, complaint was filed and the same was adjudicated upon by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer. The second appellate court under such circumstances, confirmed the findings of the courts below and dismissed the appeal. In fact liberty was given to petitioner that if he asserts title over the land in question by adverse possession, such power does not lie with the revenue courts, he may file a Civil Suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction for sustenance of his claimed rights. Being aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision petition as neither there was any illegality nor jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the courts below.