GEETABAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2019 passed by the Tehsildar, Ujjan and notice dated 02.09.2019 (Annexure A/12) directing the petitioners to hand over the possession of the land Survey No.1590 area 2.163, Survey No.1592 area 3.162 hectare, Survey No.1611 area 0.115 hectare, Survey No.1617 area 1.306 hectare.

(2.) Facts of the case in short are as under: One Motilal filed application on 03.08.1951 under Section 326 of Kanoon Mall Adhiniyam seeking restoration of possession of the land Survey Nos.1518, 1590, 1592 and 1617. According to Motilal, he was given the aforesaid land on lease from 01.04.1950 to 31.03.1951 by Municipal Corporation, Ujjain for cultivation. He was required to hand over the vacant possession to the Corporation on 31.03.1951, but he had been forcefully dispossessed by the non-applicants. The application was initially filed against the seven non-applicants namely Siddhu, Beniram, Devisingh, Daulatsingh, Chotelal, Champabai & Kesarbai. During pendency of the proceeding before the Tehsildar, Devisingh expired and his LR's were brought on record. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.04.1974, the Tehsildar has observed that the proceedings have been abated against Devisingh and directed the other non-applicants to hand over the possession to him. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.06.1990, the Tehsildar has dismissed the application on the ground that Motilal has failed to establish that he was forcefully dispossessed, therefore, he is not entitled for restoration of possession under Section 326 of Kanoon Mall. It has also been observed that the Municipal Corporation, Ujjain is entitled to retain the possession.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Siddhu preferred an appeal before the SDO. Vide order dated 17.02.1996, the SDO has set aside the order of Tehsildar dated 13.06.1990 and remanded the case for deciding afresh after impleading all the necessary party through their legal heirs.