BABA GYANDAS Vs. TAHSILDAR SHEOPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19/06/2013 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision case No.R - 1528 -I/2013 (Annexure P/1) whereby affirmed the order dated 22/02/2013 in case No.1/12 -13/A -12 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Tahsildar, Sheopur District Shoepur rejecting the objections to the demarcation proceedings on the premise that the petitioner is not recorded as bhumi swami in the land records in respect of the land in question.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are to the effect that the petitioner has filed a civil suit seeking injunction in respect of agricultural land falling in survey No.269/1Ka(3) admeasuring 1.208 hectare situated in village Salapura, Tahsil Sheopur, District Sheopur against private persons only. The trial Court dismissed the said suit No.152A/2005(sic) (Gyan Das Baba Gurudin Chaturbhuj Vs. Chandrakanta and others) vide judgment and decree dated 13/01/2006. However, on appeal, the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13/07/2006 in civil appeal No.12A/2006 has directed that since the plaintiff/appellant found to be in possession, he shall not be dispossessed except by due process of law. The aforesaid decree was passed against the private persons only. The State was not made a party. Upon perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, it appears that there was no contest between the parties.

(3.) Respondent No.2 recorded as bhumi swami in the revenue record in respect of survey No.269/1Ka(2) admeasuring 2.090 hectare; adjacent to the aforesaid land to which petitioner claims to be in possession, filed an application for demarcation. Objection was raised by the petitioner in demarcation proceedings on the premise that the land in excess to the ownership of respondent No.2 is being demarcated as part of his land to which he is not recorded as bhumi swami. The Tahsildar rejected the objection on the premise that for the purpose of inquiry in the proceedings for demarcation under section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') only such persons are required to be noticed and heard who are recorded as bhumi swami in the revenue record. As the petitioner is not recorded as bhumi swami though claimed to be in possession, he was not found to be party interested in the demarcation proceedings. Accordingly, the objection was rejected. The order passed by the Tahsildar has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue.