KAPOORCHAND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case of an encroachment under section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The order of the Commissioner has been attacked on two grounds. The first ground is that the Commissioner erred in admitting the appeal of Krishnanand as he was not a party to the proceedings. The second ground is that as the State did not file an appeal or cross- objection the Commissioner should not have reopened the case by ordering a fresh enquiry to be made.

(2.) Krishnanand, in his memorandum of appeal before the Commissioner, has written that he has been giving applications for the last 15 or 16 years for getting the land in question. Then at the end of the memorandum of appeal Krishnanand has prayed that after the removal of the encroachment due consideration may be paid to his request for the land in question. Thus it is clear that Krishnanand is an interested person. Further a distinction should be made between cases which are not of any administrative importance and cases which are of administrative importance. Encroachment cases are obviously of administrative importance as encroachments normally cause harassment to the community. Government officers are expected to take interest in the detection and removal of encroachments and they can take action suo motu in that connection. Even if Krishnanand had not been a party the Commissioner could have heard him on the subject of encroachment which is of vital administrative importance. There is, therefore, no force in the first ground mentioned above.

(3.) As explained above in the previous paragraph such cases of administrative importance should not be treated on a par with other cases dealing between one private party and another private party. There is, therefore, no question of the State not filing an appeal or a cross-objection. The important thing is to get at the truth whatever it may be. The exact area under encroachment will have to be found out. Again the condoning of an encroachment is a matter of discretion and the learned Commissioner was well within his powers in examining whether the Additional Collector Shri Das exercised this discretion properly. Thus there is no force in the second ground also.