SHYAM MURARI AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dtd. 21/3/2016 passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Hatta, District Damoh in Revenue Case No.5-A/2015-16, order dtd. 30/1/2017 passed by the S.D.O.(R) Hatta, District Damoh in Appeal No.40-A/70/2015-16, order dtd. 19/7/2018 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Sagar in Appeal No.745/A-70/2016-17 and order dtd. 5/10/2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior in case No. Revision/5561/2018/MPLRC by which the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 250 of the M.P.L.R. Code has been rejected.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of Khasra No.15/3 ad measuring 0.047 hectares, Khasra No.17/3 ad measuring 1.216 hectares, Khasra No.19/3 ad measuring 0.287 hectares and Khasra no.20/1 ad measuring 0.032 hectares as he has purchased the same by registered sale-deed dtd. 9/1/2013. Since the aforesaid land was illegally encroached upon by respondents no. 4 to 6, therefore, he filed an application under Sec. 250 of the Code before the Tahsildar, Hatta, District Damoh. Respondents no.4 to 6 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the aforesaid application on the ground that the land in dispute is an abadi land and the application under Sec. 250 of the Code is not maintainable.

(3.) The Tahsildar, Tahsil Hatta, District Damoh held that house is also constructed over the land in dispute and, therefore, for restoration of possession of the house, an application under Sec. 250 of the Code is not maintainable. Accordingly, the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 250 of the M.P.L.R.Code was dismissed. Ultimately, the petitioner lost his case even upto the Board of Revenue.