BRAHASPATI BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 28.6.1998 (Annexure P-20) finding the respondent No. 4 eligible for allotment of patta and against the order dated 5.10.2004 passed by the Collector (Annexure P-31) rejecting the petitioner's case for grant of patta under Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Kshetro Ke Bhoomihin Vyakti (Pattadhriti Adhikaron Ke Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984 (for short "Act of 1984").

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner was occupying the land admeasuring 406 sq.ft. situated in ward No. 2 of Maharajpur, Mandla on which the petitioner had constructed a hut and had also obtained electric connection. She was paying the electricity bills and property tax for the said hut. Her further case is that respodent No. 4 who was residing in front of the petitioner's hut was constructing her hut, therefore, the respondent No. 4 was granted temporary permission to live in the hut of the petitioner. When survey was conducted under the Act of 1984 the petitioner had gone out of Mandla and the authorised officer recorded the name of the respondent No. 4 as occupant of the hut and consequently the impugned order Annexure P-20 dated 28.6.1998 was passed by the authorised officer sanctioning the patta in favour of the respondent No. 4 under the Act of 1984 as amended by the Amending Act of 1998. The petitioner raised objection against the allotment of patta to the respondent No. 4 but the Naib Tahsildar by order dated April 2000 did not accept objection. Aggrieved with this, petitioner preferred revision before the Collector under section 4-A of the Act of 1984, which was dismissed by the Collector by order dated 29.4.2002. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2965/2003 before this Court which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 27.6.2003 with a direction to the Collector to reconsider the matter by considering the documents filed by the petitioner. The Collector thereafter passed the order dated 5.10.2004 rejecting the petitioner's case for grant of patta. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition by pointing out that the patta has rightly been allotted to the respondent No. 4 in accordance with the provisions of the Act and there is delay in filing the writ petition and also that the finding of fact about the possession which has been recorded by the Collector is not open to challenge.