(BY SHRI PIYUSH DHARMADHIKARI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE v. T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court

Between:- SHRI BIHARI YADAV, S/O SHRI RAMSAKHA YADAV, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O GRAM ITHA, POLICE STATION SAGRA, TAHSIL HUZUR, DISTRICT REWA (M.P.) RAMSAKHA YADAV, S/O SHRI SUMESHWAR YADAV, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O GRAM ITHA, POLICE STATION SAGRA, TAHSIL HUZUR, DISTRICT REWA (M.P.) BRAJENDRA YADAV, S/O LATE SHRI MOLAI YADAV , AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O GRAM ITHA, POLICE STATION SAGRA, TAHSIL HUZUR, DISTRICT REWA (M.P.) (BY SHRI VIKRAM SINGH, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH DIVISION DIVISIONAL REWA(M.P.) COMMISSIONER, COLLECTOR, DISTRICT REWA (M.P.) SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TAHSIL HUZUR, GRAM ITHA, DISTRICT REWA (M.P.) TAHSILDAR, DISTRICT REWA (M.P.) TAHSIL HUZUR GRAM ITHA, PATWARI, TAHSIL HUZUR, GRAM ITHA, DISTRICT REWA (M.P.) SHRI VISHNU DAYAL SHARMA, S/O BAIDNATH SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GRAM ITHA, POLICE STATION SAGRA, TAHSIL HUZUR, DISTRICT REWA (M.P.) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PIYUSH DHARMADHIKARI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE) .....RESPONDENTS T h is petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the Signature Not Verified SAN following: JASSAL The petitioners have filed this petition aggrieved by the order dated ORDER

04.03.2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed in Case No.0145/Appeal/2021-2022 by the Commissioner, Division Rewa, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners has 2 been dismissed. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the respondent filed an application under Section 250 of the MPLRC before the Tahsildar seeking a prayer for evicting the petitioners from the land bearing Khasra No.119 having area 0.064 Hectares situated at Village Itha. Thereafter, an order was passed on 23.02.2021 directing the petitioners to vacate the property in question. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 44(1) of the MPLRC before the Sub-Divisional Officer along with an application seeking the staying of execution proceedings pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No.4, however, the same was rejected. Thereafter, second appeal was also filed under the provisions of Section 44(2) of the MPLRC for staying the execution proceedings.

However, the same was also rejected for the reason that petitioners failed to prove their ownership over the property in question. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they have been residing on the property for more than 80 years and this land was given on a compromise to the petitioners and their forefathers by the original landlord namely, Heera Lal Sharma (forefather of respondent No.6) on payment of amount of Rs.1200/-. However, the names of petitioners remained to be mutated on the land despite an undertaking as evident from Panchayatnama (Annexure P/6) and during this entire period, neither Heera Lal Sharma nor any of his legal heirs have raised any dispute regarding the possession of petitioners over the property. It is stated that somehow the property was sold to one Vishnu Dayal Sharma by the grandson of Heera Lal Sharma and the order for eviction has been passed on his application.

It is submitted that the Revenue authorities have failed to consider that the petitioners have perfected their title over the land by adverse possession also. On enquiring from the counsel for the petitioners whether the petitionrs have Signature Not Verified SAN JASSAL filed a civil suit for declaring their right over the land, it has been stated that the petitioners have already taken recourse to the legal proceedings and have also filed an application for injunction in the said civil suit. 3 Since, the petitioners have filed an application for injunction in the pending civil suit, they may pursue their remedy before the civil court and press for early hearing of their application for temporary injunction. There is no merit in the petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. (NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified SAN SAN JASSAL JASSAL