BRAJMOHAN SHARMA Vs. KALURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 25/3/2024 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Lateri District Vidisha in case No. 112/A-121-2023-2024 and the order dtd. 18/1/2024 passed by Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Lateri District Vidisha in case No.36/A-121/2023-24 whereby the authorities have carried out demarcation of survey No. 191/1/1 situated at village Danwas Patwari Halka No.60 Tehsil Lateri District Vidisha without given any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, initially respondent No.1 had filed an application for demarcation and on the basis of that application, Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil Lateri had passed an order dtd. 23/5/2023 directing Revenue Inspector Mandal 02 Lateri to conduct demarcation and after demarcation, prepare report Panchnama and field book and submit it on or before 31/5/2023 before the Nayab Tehsildar. When this fact came into the knowledge of petitioner, he preferred objection before Tehsildar, Tehsil Lateri averring that since respondent No.1 is trying to encroach upon the land of petitioner, therefore, before passing any order an opportunity of hearing be afforded to him because the land is situated at meeting point of two villages. Teshildar forwarded the said objections to Revenue Inspector to decide, who was not an officer under the definition of Revenue Authorities in Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Revenue Inspector thereafter had given report to Teshildar that he has considered the objections and as the objections are baseless, therefore, they are liable to be rejected. Thereafter, a notice dtd. 18/10/2023 had been issued to the petitioner and other persons by the Revenue Inspector and without serving the said notice, a Panchnama (Annexure P/8) was prepared and it was found that the petitioner has encroached upon the land of respondent No.1. The order-sheets passed by the Nayab Tehsildar clearly indicate that in the first order-sheet, no further date of listing is mentioned and suddenly, on 1/1/2024, the matter was taken up and it was mentioned in the order-sheet that parties are not present and again no further date of listing was mentioned and on 18/1/2024, final order has been passed without considering the objections of the petitioner. Thereafter, against the order dtd. 18/1/2024, an appeal was preferred before Sub-Divisional Officer which was rejected by learned Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dtd. 25/3/2024 in a very casual and mechanical manner. Hence, it is prayed that present petition be allowed setting aside the orders dtd. 18/1/2024 and 25/3/2024.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the demarcation proceedings were conducted before the Tehsildar in presence of petitioner. Notice was duly issued and served upon him. The matter was well within the knowledge of petitioner and after demarcation, the petitioner is alleged to have encroached upon 0.515 hectare land of respondent No.1, hence, it is prayed that present petition be dismissed.