Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jitendra Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Jitendra Kumar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 30, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1042035

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jitendra Kumar

Advocate Shri. Shailendra Verma

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

writ petition no.19133/2012 30.11.2012 shri shailendra verma, learned counsel for the petitioners.shri lalit joglekar, learned pl for respondent nos.1 to 4. heard on the question of admission. the petitioners have filed this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india for quashment of the order dated 27.9.2012, (ann. p-7) passed by respondent no.4, tahsildar rahatgaon, district harda in revenue case no.98-a/68/11-12 and the order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the sdo, timarni in revenue appeal no.1-a/68/12-13 whereby the aforesaid earlier order of tahsildar passed under section 248 of m.p.land revenue code directing the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment has been affirmed. in the cours.of arguments on admission on asking the petitioners.counsel that in view of availability of forum of second appeal to challenge the impugned order before the court of commissioner revenue under the provision of m.p.land revenue code to the petitioners.how this writ petition filed under article 226 could be entertained for quashment of aforesaid order, on which instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the second appeal under the provision of m.p.l.r.c.to challenge the aforesaid orders.considering his prayer without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn by extending a liberty to the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid orders by way of second appeal before the court of commissioner. on filing the application alongwith aforesaid second appeal the petitioners shall be entitled to get exclusion of the period in limitation spent by him in prosecuting the present petition. c c as per rules. (u.c.maheshwari) judge bks

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.19133/2012 30.11.2012 Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned PL for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 27.9.2012, (Ann.

P-7) passed by respondent No.4, Tahsildar Rahatgaon, district Harda in Revenue case No.98-A/68/11-12 and the order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the SDO, Timarni in Revenue Appeal No.1-A/68/12-13 whereby the aforesaid earlier order of Tahsildar passed under Section 248 of M.P.Land Revenue Code directing the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment has been affirmed.

In the couRs.of arguments on admission on asking the petitioneRs.counsel that in view of availability of forum of second appeal to challenge the impugned order before the court of Commissioner Revenue under the provision of M.P.Land Revenue Code to the petitioneRs.how this writ petition filed under Article 226 could be entertained for quashment of aforesaid order, on which instead to argue further he seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the second appeal under the provision of M.P.L.R.C.to challenge the aforesaid ordeRs.Considering his prayer without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn by extending a liberty to the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid orders by way of second appeal before the court of Commissioner.

On filing the application alongwith aforesaid second appeal the petitioners shall be entitled to get exclusion of the period in limitation spent by him in prosecuting the present petition.

C c as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial