Smt. Upasna Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1044154
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnSep-12-2012
AppellantSmt. Upasna Sharma
RespondentPrincipal Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
w.p.no.14647 / 2012 (smt. upasna sharma..vs...state of mp & others.12-09-2012 heard shri siddharth gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 7-8-2012 passed by the commissioner, revenue division, sagar. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order has been passed by the commissioner in the case of one chhidiya alias chhiddi son of imami koojda in respect of property, a part of which is in possession of the petitioner and pursuant to the aforesaid order the respondent/authorities are taking up proceedings against the petitioner also. it is submitted that this court in w.p.no.12441/2010 (pil) has passed an order dated 20-9-2010 directing the authorities to conduct an enquiry into the change in the revenue records made by the authorities and after affording an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties take a final decision in the matter. it is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid directions the collector, chhatarpur, had passed an order on 29-12-2010 which has been affirmed in appeal by the commissioner by the impugned order dated 7-8-2012 but no opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has been given. from a perusal of the record it is apparent that against the impugned order passed by the commissioner, revenue division, sagar dated 7-8-2012 remedy of taking up proceedings before the higher authorities is available to the affected party under the provisions of m.p.land revenue code. that apart, in case the petitioner wishes to obtain a declaration in respect of his title, the appropriate remedy available to him is to file a civil suit and obtain a decree in that respect. as the aforesaid remedies are available to the petitioner, i am of the considered opinion that this writ petition assailing the impugned order does not deserve to be entertained. it is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he be granted liberty to approach the authorities by filing a representation pointing out the directions and observations made by the division bench of this court in w.p.no.12441/2010 (pil) dated 20-9-2010 and seek an opportunity of hearing in respect of the land in possession of the petitioner as no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner in apparent violation of the orders passed by this court. it is submitted that had he been given an opportunity of hearing he would have brought to the notice of the authorities the notification issued by the state government under the provisions of wakf act wherein the property in possession of the petitioner has not been notified as wakf property. it is submitted that the authority be directed to decide the petitioner's representation after giving an opportunity of hearing in compliance of the directions issued by this court without being influenced by the impugned orders passed in the case of chhidiya and decide the same on its own merits. in view of the aforesaid limited prayer of the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority bringing to the notice the order passed by this court in w.p.no.12441/2010 (pil) dated 20-9-2010 seeking redressal of his grievance. with the aforesaid liberty the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (r.s.jha) judge mct
Judgment:

W.P.No.14647 / 2012 (Smt.

Upasna Sharma..Vs...State of MP & otheRs.12-09-2012 Heard Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 7-8-2012 passed by the Commissioner, Revenue Division, Sagar.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order has been passed by the Commissioner in the case of one Chhidiya alias Chhiddi son of Imami Koojda in respect of property, a part of which is in possession of the petitioner and pursuant to the aforesaid order the respondent/authorities are taking up proceedings against the petitioner also.

It is submitted that this Court in W.P.No.12441/2010 (PIL) has passed an order dated 20-9-2010 directing the authorities to conduct an enquiry into the change in the revenue records made by the authorities and after affording an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties take a final decision in the matter.

It is submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid directions the Collector, Chhatarpur, had passed an order on 29-12-2010 which has been affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner by the impugned order dated 7-8-2012 but no opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has been given.

From a perusal of the record it is apparent that against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Revenue Division, Sagar dated 7-8-2012 remedy of taking up proceedings before the higher authorities is available to the affected party under the provisions of M.P.Land Revenue Code.

That apart, in case the petitioner wishes to obtain a declaration in respect of his title, the appropriate remedy available to him is to file a civil suit and obtain a decree in that respect.

As the aforesaid remedies are available to the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition assailing the impugned order does not deserve to be entertained.

It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he be granted liberty to approach the authorities by filing a representation pointing out the directions and observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12441/2010 (PIL) dated 20-9-2010 and seek an opportunity of hearing in respect of the land in possession of the petitioner as no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner in apparent violation of the orders passed by this Court.

It is submitted that had he been given an opportunity of hearing he would have brought to the notice of the authorities the notification issued by the State Government under the provisions of Wakf Act wherein the property in possession of the petitioner has not been notified as wakf property.

It is submitted that the authority be directed to decide the petitioner's representation after giving an opportunity of hearing in compliance of the directions issued by this Court without being influenced by the impugned orders passed in the case of Chhidiya and decide the same on its own merits.

In view of the aforesaid limited prayer of the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority bringing to the notice the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.12441/2010 (PIL) dated 20-9-2010 seeking redressal of his grievance.

With the aforesaid liberty the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.

C.C.as per rules.

(R.S.Jha) Judge mct