W.P. No. 132/2000 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava W.P. No. 132/2000 ....PETITIONERS:1. Sanjay Krishna Das Kapadia, aged about 30 years, son of Krishna Das Kapadia, Agriculturist, R/o 4, Sanjay Nagar, Burhanpur 2. Smt. Champa Ben wife of Krishna Das Kapadia, aged about 58 years, Agriculturist 3. Smt. Anita Rajesh Kapadia, aged about 35 years, wife of Rajesh Kapadia, Agriculturist 4. Rajesh Kapadia, aged about 36 years, Managing Director, Shri Krishna Agro Biotech Limited. Nos. 2-4 all residents of 4, Sanjay Nagar, Burhanpur (M.P.) Versus ....RESPONDENTS:1. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Burhanpur, through its Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity, Burhanpur. 2. Officer-in-charge, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity, Burhanpur-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Burhanpur (MP). 3. Shri Krishan Das Kapadia, aged about 63 years, s/o Maniklal Kapadia, R/o 4, Sanjay Nagar, Burhanpur (M.P.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None for the petitioner. Shri K.N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2. ORDER (05/01/2011) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: W.P. No. 132/2000 -2- “i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing public notice dt. 10.12.99 (ANN-P/2) issued by the respondent no.1; ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondents to release the property of the petitioners forthwith as per ANN-P/1 and no coercive action be taken against them, pending decision of the petition; iii. Issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; iv. cost of the petition.” 2. This is an old petition of 2000. Although on 21.1.2000 an order was passed by this Court to issue show cause notice to the respondents but no interim order was passed. On 23.7.2001 none appeared for the petitioner. Thereafter, on 20.9.2010 again none appeared for him. Since this is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India it can be disposed of without hearing learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 this petition is disposed of. 3. On bare perusal of the memorandum of writ petition as well as Annexure P-1 and P-2 it is gathered that the land which was attached by respondents No.1 and 2 is of petitioners and not that of respondent No.3 and therefore, in an order of recovery against respondent No.3 the petitioners' land could not be attached. However, no document has been filed by the petitioners in order to indicate that the land which has been attached against the recovery of respondent No.3 does not belong to respondent No.3 and petitioners are owner of the said property. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is the son and W.P. No. 132/2000 -3- petitioner No.2 is the wife of respondent No.3 while other respondents are his heirs. Even otherwise under Section 34 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam there is a provision of appeal and no appeal has been filed against the order of attachment. 4. Looking to the averments made in the pleadings since it is not demonstrated that the land which was attached against the recovery is of the petitioners and does not belong to the respondent No.3 this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE S/