1 W.P. No. 3953/2004 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON. SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA WRIT PETITION NO. 3953/2004 ......... Petitioners 1. Shankar Prasad aged about 60 years, 2. Narmada Prasad aged about 57 years, 3. LRs of Late Ram Sumer (a) Smt. Ramvati, (b) Vyas Kumar (c) Ram Lakhan (d) Kaveri Prasad (e) Tapti Prasad No.(a) is widow, Nos.(b to e) are sons of Late Ram Sumer Versus ........ Respondents 1. Smt. Jairaju aged about 75 years, 2. Chhedi Lal, aged about 25 years, 3. Bharat Lal. aged about 22 years, Respondent No.1 is widow, Respondents no.2 and 3 are sons of Darbari Lal, R/o Village Gadhi, Tahsil Teonthar, District Rewa, (M.P.) 4. The State of M.P. through the Collector, Rewa. 2 W.P. No. 3953/2004 ................................................................................................ Petitioners - Shri V.S.Choudhary and Rajendra Raghuvanshi, Advocate. Respondents No.1 to 3 - None Respondent No. 4/State - Shri Harish Agnihotri, Government Advocate. ................................................................................................ O R D E R (14/03/2011) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 11.09.2003 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no.4 whereby the revision application of the respondents no.1 to 3 has been allowed. 2. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 11.9.03 of the State Government (Annexure P/1) this Court finds that on the basis of his possession, the deceased Darbari Lal submitted an application before the Tehsildar earlier to 1976 to settle the land in dispute in his favour. The application was submitted on 26.2.1991. The order also indicates that on a stamp paper dated 14.11.1977, the land in question was sold to the petitioners for a consideration of Rs. 5,500/-. The State Government further held that the application for settlement submitted by deceased Darbarilal cannot be allowed and the order dated 4.9.1991 in his 3 W.P. No. 3953/2004 favour is null and void. In the order, it is also mentioned that the respondents have unauthorizedly occupied the land in question as trespassers. The State Government by setting aside the orders of the Courts below directed the record to be filed. 3. According to me, a finding has been arrived at by the State Government that the petitioners are the encroachers and no right vests in the deceased Darbari Lal also, therefore, no order can be passed in favour of petitioners in this petition. 4. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 11.9.2003 (Annexure P/1). However, the petitioners shall be free to file civil suit justifying their claim that they are the owners of the property in question. If such civil suit is filed, it will be decided in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE rao 4 W.P. No. 3953/2004 W.P. No. 3953/04 14.03.2011 Shri V.S. Choudhary and Shri Rajendra Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners. None for respondents no.1 to 3. Shri Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.4/State. They are heard on I.A. No. 2289/2011 which is an application for substitution of LRs of petitioner no.3. This application is allowed and the petitioners are hereby directed to correct the cause title during course of the day. Learned counsel for the parties are also heard on merit. Order dictated. Signed and dated separately. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao