The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday dismissed a petition with the observation that the petitioner has approached the wrong authority under a misconception.
The petitioner has approached the High Court challenging the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the Commissioner dismissing the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the claim is barred by time as the same has been raised by the petitioner after 30 years.
Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Commissioner has failed to consider the fact that initially petitioner filed a petition before the High Court in 2008 being W.P. No. 3159/2008 and the said writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 31.03.2010 whereby the petitioner was directed to approach the Commissioner and get declaration about his status as to whether he is a Bhumiswami or not.
In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner approached the Commissioner and the Commissioner by its order dated 10.01.2011 rejected the claim of the petitioner. The said order dated 10.01.2011 was again assailed by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 3801/2011 which was finally decided by the High Court by the order dated 09.01.2015 and the order of the Commissioner dated 10.01.2011 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh in view of the law laid down by the High Court in the case of Ramkishor Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 72/2008) decided on 02.07.2012.
The petitioner, instead of approaching the Commissioner approached the Collector under some misconception and the Collector registered the case, as Case No. 10/A74/2017-18 and finally passed an order on 17.11.2020 holding that the matter has to be heard by the Commissioner but the Collector has no jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Commissioner and the Commissioner by the order dated 11.01.2021, dismissed the claim of the petitioner saying that it is barred by time.
Petitioner’s Councel alleged that the Commissioner has wrongly held that there is a delay of 30 years whereas the matter has been remitted back to the Commissioner by the order dated 09.01.2015 by the High Court in W.P. No. 3801/2011.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi , while considering the submission, held, “Even otherwise, I am not convinced with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. From perusal of the order passed by the Collector, it is clear that the same has been decided vide order dated 17.11.2020 whereas the High Court has decided the matter on 09.01.2015 directing the petitioner to approach the Commissioner and instead of approaching the Commissioner, the petitioner approached the Collector, that too in 2017 because from the case registered by the Collector and the number given therein, it is clear that it had been filed in the year 2017-2018.”
“There is no explanation given by the petitioner as to why the order passed by the High Court has not been complied with immediately and petitioner has even though under misconception approached the wrong authority, i.e. Collector immediately. In such a circumstance, delay has been made by the petitioner at every stage and accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition and re-open the issue already raised by the petitioner before 15 years challenging the award passed by the authority in the year 1990,”
-the Court said while dismissing the Petition.