HARIKISHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid two petitions as they are heard together with the consent of the parties.

(2.) IN both the petitions, petitioners those who are cultivators of village Balamet, District Guna have filed petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of. certiorari or any other writ, order or direction for restraining the State Government to exchange the land of charnoi with the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and not to allow respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to use charnoi land for cultivation and for the quashment of order dated 2-7-2004 passed by Board of Revenue, M. P.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that the State Government allotted the land bearing Survey Nos. 25/31,25/32 and 25/33 total area of 1. 000 Hectares each to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and they were in possession. Subsequently respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application for exchange of the aforesaid land with Survey No. 3 situated in the same Village Balamet having total area of 65. 387 Hectares. Objections were invited on the said application and several objections were filed by the villagers including the petitioners that the land bearing Survey No. 3 is charnoi land and is being utilized by the villagers for common use and should not be allowed to be exchanged. This claim of the respondent was challenged that they are in possession of the land and cultivating thereon. After inquiry the Revenue Officers submitted report that the land survey No. 3 is charnoi land and, therefore, the said land cannot be given in exchange to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The Collector vide order dated 26-11-2002 on the basis of the report of Patwari and Tehsildar rejected their application saying that the charnoi land cannot be allowed to be exchanged. Thereafter the respondents filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner gwalior Division, Gwalior and vide order dated 3-5-2003 the Additional commissioner Gwalior Division, Gwalior rejected the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Collector holding therein that the use of charnoi land cannot be allowed to be changed for the individual persons and it will not be in the public interest as well as in the interest of the Government. Thereafter, the respondents filed a revision before the Board of Revenue and President Board of Revenue vide order dated 2-7-04 allowed the revision and declared the aforesaid land for agricultural purpose and granted permission to exchange with the patta land. This order is challenged by some of the villagers in W. P. No. 1671/04 and by some of the villagers in W. P. No. 1833/06 in Public Interest litigation Petition. In reply the State Government has contended that the impugned order passed by the President Board of Revenue is totally illegal, contrary to the provisions of Section 237 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and beyond the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue. In reply the State has also supported the case of the petitioners and in the return has stated that the land bearing Survey No. 3 is a charnoi land and this contention of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 is not correct that they were in possession of the land since long and cultivating the same as encroachers. The Collector has declined to pass the order in favour of the respondents and has directed that the encroachment over the aforesaid land be removed. The State has also stated that the Gram panchayat has also passed a resolution that the land of Charnoi should remain as it is. Some of the villagers including some of the petitioners have filed a petition before the Board of Revenue for permitting them to join as party in revision but they were not allowed before the Board of Revenue and the application for intervention was rejected. The State has also raised an objection in this petition that the charnoi land cannot be exchanged without following due process of law as contemplated under Sections 234 and 237 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and the Collector had no option but to follow the order passed by the Board of revenue as the same is binding on the Collector. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have filed their return and have supported the order passed by the Board of Revenue.