sassm. BiiBEi'Iiu*. w "S. IN THE HIGH GOUaT QF JUDIGATUaE AT JABALKR.M.P,^ WRIT PETITICN NOAAS_?s. QF 2000. ~^, PSTIIION_U i3a ^TI.CLe.S 226/227 OF THE GONSTl'tUnQN OF_INDxA^. EEJITICTaaS 1. CHn,<<BIL DAS,-son of Maksoodan, aged about 54 years, Kotwar of Kogagondi, Tehsil Gurur, District Durg, M.P. 2. DHR'JV 3AH Son of Oiehan, aged 50 yrs., Ko-twar of Pi kripar, 3. aOOpDAS, son of LALDAS, aged 42 years, Kotwar ®fTiikhari, 4. TUisAaAM, son of 3ALIYA,aged 55 years, Kotwar of village Khertha; 5. GAUTAM &&M, 3/0 Qulam, ags 40 yaais, Kotwar of Badeshara» 6. BALUJRAiri, S/oaameshar,ags 40 ysars, Kotoar of villag®Oztjagahan, 7. UliESi-I KUVAa.,3/0 fakira singh,30 years , Kotwar of DOTOE>Aa, 8. CHE1ANaAM,S/o ShitaMas.age 40 years, Kptwar of village Sargli, 9. ASMANI KUKlAft S/o Gangaram,28 years, Kotwar ef village Sangli-No.2, 10. HULAS Sonof Ram Gula&,age 36 ysars, Kotwar of village Basim, 11. aAbCOPAS/o ffi^SHGOO,aged - years, Kotwar of village Titargahan , All the above petiti.oners a.xe of Tehsil Gurur, District Darg, M.P. eg M Ji 11i'l 6^^.-r--i.-,.! _^.^v£W!fsSlSEi!S»6—f— -' VE^asus H£SP_OND£NTS . 1. Ths State of Macihya Pradesh through SecretaX'y, in the Department of Aevenue, Governaant of nl. P., Va-llabh Bhawan, BHOPAL, M.P. 2. The Collector ef District Durg, at OU5G, M.P. ^- .,M*... i,;;; ^\W. swsss Sl-HC-22 , -;y^:- ^—^^^. ^^c,^^^^^=^ ^s^- :.-' ^ ..^7. &s'- -yss •^fmvw, wNIre, '^wgTP <^9 &j,.^wo- a^. SlQo'a .-^/ fa^a sn^i 6^<nwHl?ti ©-10-2001 ^iqTia^ •ciwaf^ rs^ -tfsnsR: •q; 3TRTE| •3fI^?I Shri AshoR [)a^ Vaishnava,.1earned counsel for fh®kpietitioners. SFiffi^lDeep Keshai'wani, learned 6ovt. Advocats- for the State/respohclenl-4 Return has been flilecl. Heard. The case of/the ^/rit petitioners is that prior to 1950 the predecessors of the writ petitioners were in possession of some lands jshich are now in possession of the writ petitioner s. It is further contended that the possession of the lands in (^uestion has been uninterrupted in question are clearly recorded in the Jamabandi i.e. reverfiue land recordin the names of the predecessors of the w^it petitioners. Ths petitioners are presently working as l^otwars. They are not elaiming the said lands which ar4 recorded in Jamabandi vide Annexure-P/12 on The basi|s that they are Kotwars but on the basis that such lands Have been granted by competent i . ' ! . ,J—-Gujthcuyl^4x^t-h&-ppeclecessor's^}pior'.*o-lS150—-_— 1- ^\^ .'^' ;• ^&!< ^f^ !. '-^ 3iT*5iqiI 7^FS STTOT 'hWHT'gfer 3T{^?r -Era^i(^c(f^«i<g) On perusai of t.l^i respondents it appears thc^t controvert'ed. It is contended that certain actions havei authorsties in granting Bhunjiiswami of the Kotwars^4 /i^^ Learned. couhse! having been in continuous for such a ver^ long time the petitioners should be also further contended Petition No.2064 of 2000 direction was issued by thi^ It is further contended are aiso entitled toget som^ "According to Shri is entitied to ten acres of possession of the !< inasmuch as those lands predecessors who were also acljionjs bein9 contemplated. ^{f-^._ .^^. •L.^%~f?s^:':'A^^^^. thott- ands qiTiIt?Rh'qrq?if ^ fSV TJ?''"?Tt ^•3lPW3il^I e return filed on behalf of the the fact of possession is not in para9raph 4 of the return been taken by the revenue liswami rights in favour of ^some e\ijen tUat the petitioners syte^'^i pc^ssession of the lands iri qti^stion e\fen on humanitarian consideration\ 'i -•r^ ^iven Bhumiswami rights. It is in another case vide Writ <(isposed of on 03/05/2001 such Court in respect of 36 Kotwars. even otherwise vil1090 Kotwars .;—• "^'" i tands as Kotwars. /' t^eep Kesharwani a vitlags ^twar I. The petitioners-'ffl-e|j^^'"5'5g~' recorded in Anne^ure-P/12 were in possession of their [village Kotwars. 14nd. GRPRJ—FS/311—1/2001—50,000. \ Xi-HC-22 f ^ STi^T'^T 'i?;1R7 snt^T S(rRWme?I .D' J'-l -11 <f-^,Si'} ^•:^!< .' ^" ^l- — /'-li. .?- .^' .4'^tf ^?l^. 's1^,' ^%?r-: ^a^raRTq, ^citWTS, i<<ci!<ay SII^I'FRITWHfttI C20 ing to the i?raf?T'frT inwf T? fe^t T? q; 3IRTO .3TR?I learned counse! for the pe+itioners the land in quesrf^ion is Mafi land and not service land. Shri Deep Kesharwar^i controverts this statement. Be that as it may, it seems ^o me that the petitioners are claiming Bhumiswami ri9hts granted to their predecesso^s prior to 1950 and the said lands were duly recorded in d^cuments Annexure-P/12. over the lands which were On perusai of the rel me and after hearing learned ^vant documents placed before counsel of both sides, I am of the view that it will be just and fair to allow the claim of the writ petitioners. - In the result, this p^tition is disposed of with the direction that the comp^tent authority shall grant Bhumiswami rights in respe^t of the lands recorded in Jamabandi vide Annexurde-jP/12 in favour of the writ petitioners. This order shijill be carried out within one month from the date of recei^it of this order. Cert-ified copy be giv4n oss per_ryies^_ _ Chief Justice •tif.[^M^ py<^ yd€*^<€Z¥^i?^r. .^-fl^--- -;: 'y,i^y4^y^^/ ^i^^: /^.^ ^y