Full Judgment
W.A.No.600/2012 Devi Singh State of M.P.
& others 19.6.2012 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, counsel for appellant.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, G.A., for respondents.
I.A.No.7430/2012 for condonation of delay.
There is delay of 96 days days in filing this appeal.
Learned counsel for State has no objection if the delay is condoned and the matter is heard on admission.
In view of aforesaid, delay in filing this appeal is condoned.
Heard on admission.
Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the Collector by invoking powers under section 50 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 for suo motu revision directed correction of entries in the revenue records, while the appellant's name was recorded 24 years back on the basis of settlement of land in favour of appellant.
It was submitted that after 24 years of recording the name of appellant in the revenue record, the Collector was having no jurisdiction to invoke such powers and the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned G.A., supported the order.
We have perused the record and find that the appellant was recorded Bhumiswami of land, survey no.109/1 area 2.25 acres, situated in village Narela Bajeyaft, Tahsil Berasiya, District Bhopal.
The aforesaid land was alleged to be settled in favour of appellant by the Collector in case no.27/A-59/71-72 dated 23.6.1977, by changing the nature of the land.
The aforesaid land was recorded in the name of appellant on 10.10.1978 by the then Naib Tahsildar, Berasiya.
Accordingly, the name of appellant was recorded in the revenue papers.
The W.A.No.600/2012 Devi Singh State of M.P.
& others Collector, Berasiya in suo motu revision by order dated 9.7.2002 found that there was no such order dated 23.6.1977 in existence for settling the land in favour of appellant by the Collector and directed that the land be recorded in the name of Government.
Against this order, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, which was dismissed.
Thereafter the writ petition was filed before the High Court.
The order of the Collector dated 9.7.2002 is on record as Annexure P-10, which reveals that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter the matter was taken in suo motu revision.
The Collector also recorded that he himself perused the mutation Panji and order dated 5.12.1978 of Naib Tahsildar, which specifically reveals that the appellant was Government teacher, so the land could not be settled in his favour, but on the basis of such an order the mutation was effected in favour of appellant, while there was no such settlement order in favour of the appellant.
In absence of any order in favour of appellant, if any entry was recorded in the revenue record in favour of appellant and if this fact has been taken into consideration by the Collector for invoking powers of suo motu revision, no fault is found.
During the course of hearing, we have also specifically asked from the appellant, whether the appellant is possessing any copy of the order dated 23.6.1977 passed by the Collector or order of settlement in favour of appellant dated 10.10.1978 or any other order, learned counsel for appellant stated that no such order is on record.
The Collector while invoking powers of suo motu revision has taken into consideration all the aforesaid W.A.No.600/2012 Devi Singh State of M.P.
& others glaring facts and found that mutation of appellant in the revenue record was without any basis and the order referred in the mutation Panji does not reflect that the land was settled in favour of appellant and on the contrary the Naib Tahsildar on 5.12.1978 specifically stated that the appellant being a Government teacher, land cannot be settled in his favour.
In view of aforesaid, the order passed by the Collector, affirmed by the Commissioner, appears to be proper.
The learned Single Judge, after considering the entire facts of the case, has dismissed the writ petition, in which no error is found.
This appeal is without any merit.
At this stage, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant has sinked a tube well in the land, developed the land, constructed a house/godown, so one year's period be allowed to the appellant to vacate the land.
It was also submitted that on 25.5.2012 the order of eviction has been passed by the Naib Tahsildar.
On raising such contention, we have heard Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned G.A., who opposed the aforesaid prayer of appellant for allowing one year's time to vacate the premises.
After considering the total facts of the case, we find it appropriate to allow three months time to the appellant to vacate the land, but on following terms :- 1.
Appellant to file an undertaking before the Collector, Bhopal that appellant shall vacate the land in question on or before 30th September, 2012 peacefully, without creating any hindrance or third party interest in the land.
2.
If any such undertaking is filed within a period of fifteen days from today, the Collector, Bhopal shall permit the appellant W.A.No.600/2012 Devi Singh State of M.P.
& others to occupy the land till 30th September, 2012.
3.
In case the undertaking is not filed, the authorities shall be within their right to evict the appellant, in accordance with law, but in case such an undertaking is filed and in spite of undertaking the land is not vacated by the appellant on or before 30th September, 2012, the authorities shall be within their right to evict the appellant from the land and also to recover the damages from the appellant, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid direction, this appeal is finally disposed of, with no order as to costs.
C.C., as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE M.