JITENDRA PAL MONGIYA Vs. AAMJANTA KOLGAVAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned orders dated 21/04/2016, 17/07/2014 and 11/06/2014 (Annexure-P/1 to P/3) passed by respondents No.2 to 4.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.403/1/Ka/1/1 having an area of 0.13 acre, khasra No.404/1/1/Ka having an area of 0.30 acre, Khasra No.404/2/gha/5/2 having an area of 0.0256 acre and Khasra No.407/1/4 having an area of 0.13 acre. Initially the land was recorded jointly in the name of the petitioner along with Mahendrapal Mongiya, Yogendrapal Mongiya, Praveen Kumar Mangiya. Thereafter they applied for partition before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar vide order dated 09/06/2014 allowed the application filed by the petitioner and, accordingly, the separate revenue entries were prepared. On the basis of the said order, Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika was prepared wherein the name of the petitioner was also recorded in separate khasra entry. A complaint was made by Aamjanta Mauja Kolgavan for declaring 14 khasras sitiated at Mauja Kolgavan, Patwari Halka Bardadeeh to be as road. The Collector has exercised the power of suo motu revision and passed an order dated 16/17-1-2013. The Collector has directed the Revenue Inspector to submit Panchnama. The revenue inspector submitted his report on 24/06/2013. On the basis of the Panchnama, the SDO has published a notice under Section 242 of the M.P. L.R.C. stating that the same changes are to be made with regard to the land mentioned in the report and the same be recorded as Wajid-ul-arz and the persons aggrieved, were directed to submit their objections on or before 28/02/2014. On the basis of the objections submitted by the petitioner, a case was registered by the S.D.O. The SDO vide impugned order dated 11/06/2014 allowed the objections preferred by the petitioner and held that the land in question cannot be recorded as Wajid-ul-arz as it is a colony which cannot be come under term 'Public use' and he ordered that the said land in column 12 of Khasra be recorded as road and drainage. Against the order of SDO, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue vide impugned order dated 17/07/2014 has dismissed the said revision. Against the order of Board of Revenue, the petitioner has filed review before the Board of Revenue, itself who vide order dated 21/04/2016 has dismissed the revision. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders passed by the Board of Revenue are illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that the Board of Revenue has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner in the revision and dismissed the revision by a cryptic order. He further submitted that the land in question has been recorded in the name of the petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be said to be reserved for road and drainage. He further submitted that the application/complaint filed by Aamjanta is not signed by any person nor it is supported by an affidavit. In view of this, the Collector has erred in taking sue motu cognizance in the matter. He further submitted that while passing the order by the SDO, the petitioner was never heard and his objection was not decided by the SDO. In view of aforesaid, he argued that the orders passed by the Board of Revenue may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Board of Revenue for deciding the matter afresh.