LAJJAGIRI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 8-10-2003 passed by Division Bench of this High Court this petition has been registered as Public Interest Litigation.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 has filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Morena claiming that his name be mutated in the revenue records in survey number 280 and 281 situated at Village Badokhar, Morena, which were originally held by his father. He contended that the Patwari without any opportunity has deleted the name of his father and recorded the land in the name of the State. The enquiry was held by SDO, Morena, who rejected the application filed by respondent No. 3. SDO Morena elaborately held that the matter was investigated by Tehsildar, Morena and held an enquiry, in which he found that the land is recorded as "bhumi Pokhar Nistar" and nobody has made encroachment thereon as on the spot it is in the shape of a pond filled with water. S. D. O. found that both the khasra numbers were recorded in the name of ramsingh and others from Samvat 1996 to 2007 and from khasra Samvat 2008 the land has been recorded in the name of "milkiyat Sarkar" and in other columns "pokhar Nistar' has been mentioned. It was also found that the land was not in possession of anybody and nobody was using the same as an agricultural land. Respondent Ramsingh claimed ownership right over the aforesaid land but he had not produced any document regarding his ownership right. Therefore, the SDO found that on the abolition of Zagirdari and after enforcement of the Madhya Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act Samvat, 2008 (Act No. 13 of 1951) (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'act of Samvat, 2008'), the land not being Khudkasht land and being a pond came to be vested in the State and, therefore, the name of the State was entered in the relevant khasra entries and since then the land is being treated as a Government land and after 40 years the respondents have filed application for mutation which cannot be accepted and in the absence of any proof of ownership of respondent No. 3 rejected the application on 28-12-98, against which the legal heirs of Phool singh son of Ramsingh filed appeal before Collector.

(3.) THE Collector in appeal vide order dated 29-5-93 affirming the finding recorded by SDO dismissed the appeal. The Collector has also observed that why respondent No. 3 has not filed application for correcting the entries for a period of forty years, no reason has been assigned. It is not a case of encroachment over the land. Against the order of Collector, Second Appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner Chambal Division Gwalior. The additional Commissioner also found that there is no evidence on record and no proof that the land belongs to the respondents and affirmed the findings of the sdo and Collector and dismissed the appeal. Against which the respondent filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. Vide order dated 28-12-94 on the strength of the Khasra entries from Samvat 1996 to 2007 since the name of one ramsingh was recorded the Board of Revenue has not considered the provision of the Act of Samvat 2008 and merely saying that how the name of the government was recorded in the Khasra entries, allowed the revision, set aside the orders passed by the three Courts below and directed the SDO Morena to mutate the name of the applicant in the revenue record. Against which this writ petition has been filed by as many as 12 villagers.