MUNNALAL CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS were taken against the petitioner for his ejectment from certain land under Section 248 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. Those proceedings terminated against the petitioner and by order dated 3-6-1982 (Annexure 1), the petitioner was held guilty of encroaching upon the Government land. It was also found that on a portion of the land the petitioner has built a room. It was, therefore, directed that within 15 days of the order the petitioner should remove his possession from the land and should also pay a fine of Rs. 50/ -. It was also further directed that in case possession is not removed as directed, the petitioner shall be liable to pay penalty at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day. The grievance of the petitioner is that the direction to pay Rs. 15/- per day as fine in the event of the encroachment continuing is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Section 248 of the Code for such a direction can be issued only after date of the 'first ejectment'. This order has been upheld by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 30-9-1983 (Annexure 3) and by Board of Revenue by order dated 17-10-1984 (Annexure 6 ).

(2.) IN order to appreciate the contention, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions contained in Section 248 (1) of the Code. It reads as follows :-

(3.) WHEN a person unauthorisedly takes and remains in possession of unoccupied land, abadi or service land. . . or upon any land which is the property the Government, the Tahsildar has power to direct ejectment of such person from such land. A time may be fixed for such ejectment. Certain consequences may follow upon such person's not removing the encroachment. Any standing crop on the land and any building or other work which may have been constructed thereon, shall be liable to forfeiture. The property so forfeited may be disposed of by the tahsildar in which event the costs of removal and restoration of the land to its original condition shall be recoverable from such person as arrears of land revenue. In addition, such person may be liable to pay the land revenue for unauthorised period of occupation at twice the rent permissible for such land in the locality. Over and above this, he may also be liable to pay fine which may extend to Rs. 5000/ -. Even after the date of first ejectment, if such unauthorised occupation or possession still continues, the person so continuing in unauthorised occupation or possession may be further liable to pay a fine which may extend to Rs. 20/- per day. Such additional fine per day can be imposed for the period subsequent to "date of the first ejectment. " No such further fine per day can be imposed for any period anterior to the 'first ejectment'. This first ejectment is no other than the ejectment spoken of in the earlier part of the section. So long as there is no ejectment as directed in this section, the Tahsildar gets no jurisdiction to impose this further fine per day. It is clear that in order to impose such a fine per day, it is necessary to find that there has been an ejectment as contemplated under Section 248 (1) and then to ascertain the date of this ejectment. If after that ejectment, the unauthorised occupation or possession continues by the person so ejected, then and then alone the further fine can be imposed. The idea is that if a person against whom an ejectment has been directed and the order is executed by removing that encroachment, and if he, even after such ejectment, still continues in unauthorised occupation or possession, it will not be necessary for the Tahsildar to further hold an inquiry under Section 248 and to further direct his removal. On reaching a finding that there has been earlier ejectment in terms of section 248 (1), the tahsildar has been given jurisdiction to impose fine which may extend to Rs. 20/-per day without making any inquiry or taking any proceedings, as mentioned in earlier part of Section 248 (1 ). He can, on finding such person again in unauthorised occupation or possession of that land, proceed to impose such a fine. This necessarily implies fresh proceedings after the 'first ejectment' as envisaged under the first part of Section 248 (1 ). In these fresh proceedings, a person continuing in such occupation or possession shall have to be noticed and a finding shall have to be recorded after hearing such person that unauthorised occupation or possession continues. Then alone an order can be made imposing fine per day. In the earlier part of the section and in the case of the first encroachment the fine in addition to removal of the encroachment is a consolidated amount which does not take into account the period of encroachment. Different consequences may weigh while determining the amount of fine in addition to a direction to remove encroachment imposition of fine per day, therefore, is contemplated only after encroachment is first removed and is again continued by that person. We are, therefore, of opinion that while passing an order of ejectment and imposition of consolidated amount of fine under Section 248 (1), the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to further direct payment of fine per day in terms of later part of that sub-section for the reason that till then there had been no ejectment and, therefore, no subsequent or further unauthorised occupation or possession calling for imposition of any further fine per day. Separate proceedings for imposition of this additional fine would be necessary after the first ejectment in case it is noticed that the person is in unauthorised occupation or possession of that land. For this reason, the part of the impugned order (Annexure 1) which directs imposition of fine at Rs. 15/- per day has to be quashed.