SUNIL KUMAR RAJAK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction against the respondents not to interfere with his possession on the land bearing Khasra No. 601, Patwari Halka Bagota, near Old Bijawar Naka, Chhatarpur and has sought for a declaration that his possession over the said land be excluded from the purview of Section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The petitioner contends that he was issued a Patta of the said land by the Competent Authority S. D. O. Chhatarpur vide Annexure P-1. He Constructed a dwelling house which is also recorded in municipal record of Chhatarpur. He alleges that on 13-10-1997 the municipal staff of Municipal Council, Chhatarpur came on the spot and asked the petitioner to vacate the land within 30 days failing which he shall be dispossessed from the land. On the basis of the apprehension that he may be dispossessed by the respondents and his house will be demolished he filed this petition and got interim order on 21-11-1997.

(2.) THE respondents filed their return and admitted the fact that the petitioner was granted Patta as per Annexure P-1. However, they stated that petitioner has not disclosed the true facts. They stated that the Patta granted to the petitioner was confined to the extent of 0. 002 hectares (218 sq. ft. ). The petitioner exceeding to the land leased out to him encroached upon 1900 sq. ft. of land which falls in Khasra No. 601/2. It is further stated that the petitioner's Patta is for 0. 002 hectares as per Annexure P-1 but he constructed dwelling house over a land measuring 34' x 24' = 816'sq. ft. and also in addition to the said construction he surrounded an area admeasuring 21' x 50' = 1050 sq. fit. He also encroached 34 sq. ft. portion and constructed a well on it. Thus, he encroached area of 1900 sq. ft. over Khasra No. 601/2 registered in Nistar Patrak and earmarked for Kabristan and Shamshan Ghat (Cremation Ground ). In support of the contention, the respondents filed copy of Nistar Patrak (Annexure R-1 ). The respondents have also pointed out that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and has not come with clean hands. It is stated that on the basis of report of Nazul Maintenance Surveyor, dated 17-3-1992 (Annexure R-2), a notice was sent to the petitioner on 26-3-1992 (Annexure R-3 ). The petitioner has filed his reply on 8-4-1992 (Annexure R- 4 ). Thereafter the petitioner led evidence and his statement was recorded on 19-10-1992 (Annexure R-4 ). In his statement dated 19-10-1992 (Annexure R-4) the petitioner admitted that he has encroached upon the land in excess to the area granted to him on lease. In the circumstances the third respondent by order dated 9-11-1992 (Annexure R-5) directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment. On 26-3-1995, a notice was served upon the petitioner (Annexure R-6) calling upon him to remove the encroachment. As the petitioner did not remove the encroachment a further notice was issued to him on 24-9-1997 (Annexure R-7 ). The petitioner requested the respondents to allow him some lime to vacate the premises encroached by him vide Annexure R-8. Meanwhile Appeal No. 96/96-97 preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 9-11-1992 was also dismissed on 20-10-1997 by the S. D. O. Chhatarpur (Annexure R-9 ). The petitioner having suppressed all these facts has filed this petition and by making false statement got interim relief in his favour. The respondents, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed with cost.

(3.) HAVING regard to the fact that the petitioner was granted Patta of the land to the extent of 0. 002 hectares only and the petitioner encroached upon the cremation ground land. The third respondent after making enquiry and recording the statement of the petitioner has held that the petitioner has encroached upon the land. Against the said order the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the SDO Chhatarpur. Without disclosing all these facts the petitioner filed this petition which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. In this view of the matter no interference is warranted.