Madhya Pradesh HC Directs Collector To Inquire Into Land Grabbing Of Scheduled Tribe Members, Ensure That There Are No Bonded Labourers

In a Habeas Corpus petition by a man stated to be a bonded labourer, alleging that his wife had been illegally detained by certain, the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the concerned Collector to inquire into instances of land grabbing from members of Scheduled Tribe community by influential persons. The court said that it seemed like "some big people" had caused the filing of the plea through the husband, a member of ST community, so that the subject property which is his wife's can be transferred to somebody else. It said so after noting how two individuals who appeared in person had tried to "intimidate" the petitioner during the hearing. The court also asked the Collector also inquire into instances of land grabbing in respect of bonded labours working in agricultural field/households or any other places. In doing so, the Court said that it is the duty of the Collector to ensure that no bonded labour should work in his district as it is contrary to Constitutional and statutory provisions.A division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh observed, “Collector Ashoknagar shall conduct an enquiry about the instances or the cases where land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribe Community are being grabbed or disposed off by such influential persons including the persons holding different offices. It would also be the duty of the Collector, Ashoknagar to conduct enquiry in respect of bonded labours working in such agricultural field/households or any other places under the domination of such powerful persons. Collector, Ashoknagar shall have to ensure that no bonded labour should work in his district as it is contrary to Constitutional and statutory provisions".Big people who want to grab property behind litigation, habeas corpus an eye washThe present petition in nature of Habeas Corpus was filed by the petitioner alleging that his wife is in illegal confinement of private respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7.During the hearing of the matter on February 25 in the morning session, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the court. In the afternoon session the petitioner appeared; two other men–Dharmpal Sharma and Gaurav Sharma were also present in person although they were not called. The court thereafter said, "In the morning session, when matter was taken up for consideration of this petition, then from discussion, this Court gathered that petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (in the nature of habeas corpus) is an eye wash. Actually, some big people were behind this litigation and caused filing of this petition through present petitioner, so that property which is in the name of his wife Munni Bai (herein respondent No.5) can be transferred to somebody else". As per the factual matrix, the alleged corpus Munni Bai left her matrimonial home on pretext of visiting Prayagraj, but she went to her parental home in Tahsil Chanderi, District Ashoknagar. Since, she was missing, the petitioner filed a missing person report. When nothing turned positive, then he pursued a petition in the nature of habeas corpus.The petitioner's counsel argued that corpus is the wife of petitioner and due to inadvertence, she has been impleaded as party respondent No.5. They wanted to implead some other Munni Bai as party respondent. It was argued that the petitioner's wife is owner and possessor of property in question measuring approx 4.8 hectares. The State's counsel submitted that this is a case of 'lust for land' to grab land belonging to members of Schedule Tribe Community which is quite rampant in the said area. It was further submitted that it is common practice that land of persons belonging to Schedule Tribe Community are grabbed by influential people or tribal persons are persuaded to dispose it off on meagre sum. Since corpus is title holder and possessor of big chunk of land, some local politicians want to get that land in their names therefore, they are trying to influence corpus to move according to their designs.The court was informed that the wife was recovered earlier by police, but she wanted to stay at her parents' home. The counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 informed the court that the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Shankarpur, Tahsil Ishagarh and her husband alongwith other persons like Dharampal Sharma and Gaurav Sharma (who were present in the Court) grab such type of land and try to oust the members of Schedule Tribe from their land by alluring them to sell it to some other person or by forcing them to do so. Therefore, tribal members required to be protected and an enquiry be held in respect of such transactions. The counsel further informed the Court that in last ten years, many such instances came to notice, therefore, detailed enquiry of such type of transactions should be initiated. He also raised a point of status of some people being treated and worked as bonded labours.Petitioner was intimidated in court room, allegations need probeAfter hearing ...

Madhya Pradesh HC Directs Collector To Inquire Into Land Grabbing Of Scheduled Tribe Members, Ensure That There Are No Bonded Labourers

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anukriti Mishra

Madhya Pradesh HC Directs Collector To Inquire Into Land Grabbing Of Scheduled Tribe Members, Ensure That There Are No Bonded Labourers

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anukriti Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers