MOHANSINGH Vs. REVENUE COMMISSIONER, SOUTHERN DIVISION M.B. INDORE AND OTHERS
LAWS(MPH)-1955-7-9
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on July 09,1955

MOHANSINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Revenue Commissioner, Southern Division M.B. Indore And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Nevaskar, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition submitted by Mohansingh s/o Budhsingh of Ratlam against the Revenue Commissioner. Southern Division, Madhya Bharat, Indore, Collector Ratlam and one Lalchand s/o Kaluram Kothari of Ghaumukhi Pool, Ratlam.
(2.) THE allegations on which the petition is based are as follows: Petitioner Mohansingh was initially a resident of a village in Gujarat District West Punjab which now is situated in Pakistan. Ho shifted to Ratlam about five years back and settled there as a refugee. The petitioner, on learning that the house belonging to opponent Lalchand had become vacant, applied to the Collector Ratlam opponent No. 2 to allot the same to him. The Collector thereupon passed an order on 10 -4 -1953 allotting the premises to the petitioner in exercise of his powers under S. 14, Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantran Vidhan. He caused a notice to be served upon opponent No. 3 stating the fact about the premises having been found vacant and of their having been allotted to the petitioner and required him to give the same on rent to the petitioner. On receipt of this notice opponent Lalchand applied on 14 -4 -1953 stating that he had got the house vacated as he wanted to sell the same and that in case the petitioner wanted to purchase he could do so, else the notice dated 10 -4 -1953 be quashed. The Collector thereupon gave one month's time to the landlord to sell the same and directed the petitioner to settle with him in case he was desirous of purchasing the same. It was further ordered that till then the landlord should not lease out the same to any one. It appears that the house remained unsold even at the close of one month's time referred to above and on 29 -5 -1953 he again applied for possession of the premises allotted to him. The Collector thereupon passed an order on 5 -6 -1953 requiring the owner to state when he would sell the house and intimating to him that the house could not be allowed to remain vacant for an indefinite period. On 13 -6 -1953 the Collector ordered the delivery of possession of the premises to the petitioner as the owner failed to appear or answer the notice referred to above. On 15 -6 -1953 the opponent No. 3 again applied for further extension of time by two or three months to enable him to sell the house. The Collector rejected that application the same day. It appears that in pursuance of the Collector's order possession was given to the petitioner on 15 -6 -1953. Next day i.e., 16 -6 -1953 opponent again applied for redelivery of possession to him on the ground that he would sell the same within 15 or 20 days and that he could not sell for a fair price unless he was in actual possession. He further stated that the petitioner had not shifted his goods till then. The Collector thereupon passed an order the same day requiring the petitioner not to take possession of the premises allotted to him and that in case he had put any goods belonging to him there it should be removed at once at the expense of the owner. Notice of this order was ordered to be served upon the petitioner at once. On 19 -6 -1953 the landlord, who was unable to obtain possession in pursuance of the order aforesaid, again applied for immediate delivery of possession stating that he had received a notice dated 12 -6 -1953 from the Municipality Ratlam, for removing the corrugated iron sheets which had become loose and were dangerous to passers by. The Collector thereupon passed an order on 19 -6 -1953 stating that the petitioner could not he contacted and that the condition of corrugated from sheets roofing had become dangerous and was likely to do harm to the passers by and requiring the Nazir to go to the premises. It was further ordered that in case the petitioner was present the house might be got opened and the same might be shown from inside to the owner. However if he was not there the lock might be broken open, Panchanama of the goods might be made and the vacant premises delivered to the owner. The Collector by the same order required the owner to repair the house early and sell the same warning that if this was not done the initial order of allotment would be confirmed. On 23 -6 -1953 notice of this order was served upon the petitioner. He thereupon applied stating that he had already put his furniture and belongings in the premises and that he might be given, eight days' time to Ind another house. The Collector ordered him to remove his goods the same day. On that very day the owner too applied mentioning the fact of his having sold the house to one Ramakishore and of his having contracted to give him vacant possession and prayed for early delivery of possession to him.
(3.) THE Collector upon this passed an order the same day directing that intimation be given to Mohansingh to the effect that the house had been sold away by the owner to Ramakishore and that the latter wanted it for his own residence but that in case Ramakishore did not reside therein he should move again. It was further ordered that he should remove his furniture's and goods at once and also directed the Nazir to make over his goods to the custody of a Supratdar in case the same was not removed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.