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.

Dayaram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Dayaram vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 21, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1048425

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
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dayaram

Advocate Shri. Sanjay Patel

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....the petitioner in his reply before the tahsildar, bina, in the enquiry made by him has admitted that he has encroached upon the government land and it is on the basis of the aforesaid admission that the collector and the commissioner have passed orders removing the petitioner from the post of sarpanch. though during the cours.of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently tried to state that the petitioner has not made any admission, however, from a perusal of the record of the case as well as paragraph 5.4 of this petition itself it is clear the petitioner has stated that he had made encroachment in the year 1998 and as he is in possession of the encroached land for the last 20 years.therefore, he has acquired bhumiswami rights. in the circumstances, the fact that the petitioner has encroached upon the government land has not been denied by him and has in fact been admitted. in the circumstances, in view of the aforesaid admission of the petitioner regarding encroachment on the government land, i find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the collector and commissioner, sagar division, sagar removing the petitioner from the post of sarpanch as after admission of the petitioner any further enquiry or opportunity would not have made any difference on the result of the case. in view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed. (r.s.jha) judge mct

Full Judgment

W.P.No.20739 / 2012 (Dayaram ..versus State of M.P.& others.) 21-12-2012 Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.S.Bisen, learned G.A.for the State/respondents.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 20-11-2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, in Appeal No.1177- A/89-2011-12 whereby the order removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Nivoda, Tahsil Bina, District Sagar passed by the Collector, Sagar, under Section 36 of M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 has been affirmed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the proceedings before the Collector, Sagar, under Section 36 of M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 which was initiated on the complaint of the respondent No.4.

It is further stated that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to rebut the allegations against him regarding encroachment in the Government land and in such circumstances in the absence of proper opportunity to the petitioner the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after a perusal of the record it is apparent that the petitioner in his reply before the Tahsildar, Bina, in the enquiry made by him has admitted that he has encroached upon the Government land and it is on the basis of the aforesaid admission that the Collector and the Commissioner have passed orders removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch.

Though during the couRs.of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently tried to state that the petitioner has not made any admission, however, from a perusal of the record of the case as well as paragraph 5.4 of this petition itself it is clear the petitioner has stated that he had made encroachment in the year 1998 and as he is in possession of the encroached land for the last 20 yeaRs.therefore, he has acquired Bhumiswami rights.

In the circumstances, the fact that the petitioner has encroached upon the Government land has not been denied by him and has in fact been admitted.

In the circumstances, in view of the aforesaid admission of the petitioner regarding encroachment on the Government land, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch as after admission of the petitioner any further enquiry or opportunity would not have made any difference on the result of the case.

In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed.

(R.S.Jha) Judge mct

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial