LAWS(MPH)-2024-1-33

LAL KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On January 03, 2024
Lal Kumar Verma Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners being Karta of the family sold the coparcenary property in favour of respondent No.5 vide registered sale deed dtd. 16/9/2022 in respect of the land bearing survey No.537/2/2, area 1.60 Hectare (3.9536 acres). There is a house constructed by the petitioners on the said land. The recital in terms of para No.7 of the sale deed is procedural in nature. The sale deed has already been challenged by the petitioners by filing a civil suit for declaration which is pending along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Subsequent thereto an application under Sec. 250 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 has been preferred by the respondent No.5 seeking reinstatement of the bhumiswami, which was improperly dispossessed. The application in question was filed in the month of July, 2023 and the Tahsildar passed the order dtd. 22/9/2023, allowing the application filed under Sec. 250 of the Act. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer, who reserved the case vide order dtd. 28/10/2023, but later on it was shown to have been passed on that very day and communication thereof was received by the petitioner only through a notice issued by the Tahsildar on 1/1/2024. The recital of the sale deed is conspicuous in terms of non mentioning of existence of house and fruit trees. The recital is only to reflect that the land along with all uppertenants has been sold. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Revenue Officer has not taken into consideration the report of Naib Tahsidlar in which existence of house has been proved as a matter of fact and undue haste has been shown by the revenue authorities in deciding the application under Sec. 250 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, which is not maintainable simply on the basis of recital in the sale deed in respect of delivery of possession in favour of respondent No.5. Such a recital has a very weak evidenciary value.