STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. ATMARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises on the following facts.

(2.) THE plaintiff erected a Pan-thela on one side of a road in Balaghat. This led to Revenue Case No. 15 /A-68 of 60-61, in which the Tahsildar, Balaghat, found that the plaintiff was in unauthorised occupation and ordered him to remove the Pan-thela. This order, which is dated 4-1-1961, was passed under section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. THE plaintiff then filed the present suit against the State of Madhya Pradesh for a declaration that the order of the Tahsildar is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and cannot be executed against him. THE grounds on which this relief is claimed by him are that he was in authorised occupation having obtained permission from the Municipal Committee, Balaghat, and that, in any case, as the road is within the limits of the Municipal Committee, the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to take any action under section 248 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959. THE Courts below have held that the plaintiff's occupation of the road is wholly unauthorised but they have further held that as the road is within the limits of the Municipal Committee, Balaghat, the Tahsildar lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass any order under section 248 of the Code. THE plaintiff, on this finding, obtained the declaration as prayed by him from 3rd Civil Judge, Class II, Balaghat, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Distript Judge, Balaghat. THE State now appeals to this Court.

(3.) THE question under consideration depends upon the construction of certain provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, which was in force at the time when the Tahsildar passed the order, and the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code of 1959.