Bhagirath & another Vs. The State of M.P. & others
Brief facts
The petitioners were assigned the State’s land on lease but it was located far off from their village, so they decided to dispose of it. Instead of the same, an application was moved before the respondents for which no response was sought. A petition was filed by the petitioners under the same demanding the status report of the application.
Arguments before the Court
The learned advocate Shri C.R.Roman for the petitioner submitted before the Honourable Court that the petitioners are citizens of Semai Town, Tahsil Kelaras, Morena District, and were assigned the State’s land on lease in Survey No.1348/min-1 field 0.56 hectares and 0.55 hectares at Survey No. 1348 min-2. The Revenue Authorities have properly transferred the lands after allotment, the lands and their titles are also transferred in the names of the petitioners who find space in the Khasra entries.
Since the lands are located far away from their village, the petitioners found it necessary to dispose of them and therefore moved an application under section 165(7) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (Annexure P/3) on 3/5/2019 before respondent No.2. Subsequently, respondent No.2 instructed respondent No.3 to request a status report for the above-mentioned lands, but the same has not yet been re-submitted.
From time to time, petitioners have been making representations but to no avail. In such a case, the petitioners request direction from respondent no.2/Collector, Morena to determine the application as expeditiously as possible.
On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer Shri Abhishek Mishra for the respondents/ State submitted before the Honourable Court that he does not object to the petitioners’ harmless prayer.
Court’s Observations
Regard was paid to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the form of the facts and the circumstances of the case explained.
Court’s Decision
In the light of the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court directed respondent no.2/Collector for compliance with the statute, on the application dated 3/5/2019 lodged by the petitioners under section 165(7) of the Code, by a reasonable and speaking order, as expeditiously as practicable, ideally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and promptly notifying the petitioners of the decision taken thereupon.
It is made clear that no view has been expressed by this Court on the merits of the case. This petition is thus disposed of by the Honourable court with the above instructions.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
