Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 619 (MP)

Smt. Nirmalabai v. Hukamsingh And Ors.

2000-06-30

N.K.JAIN

body2000
ORDER N.K. Jain, J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner calls in question the Order dated 20-4-99, passed by respondent No. 4, the Revenue Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, vide Annexure P-8. 2. The dispute pertains to the inclusion of name of petitioner in the voter list for the elections under the provisions of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 and the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi (Mandi Samiti Ka Nirvachan) Rules, 1997 (for short 'Mandi Act' & 'Nirvachan Rules' respectively). 3. The said revision arose from the Order dated 15-4-99 (Annexure P-6), passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3) in affirmance of the Order dated 13-4-99 (Annexure P-5) of the Registering Officer (respondent No. 2), dismissing objection of respondent No. 1 to the inclusion of petitioner's name in the voter list, under the provisions of the Nirvachan Rules, 1997. Against the Order (P-6), respondent No. 1 preferred revision before respondent No. 4, the Commissioner, Ujjain, who by the impugned Order (Annexure P-8) quashed both the orders (Annexures P-5 & P-6). 4. I have heard Shri A.S. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 5. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the Order of the Commissioner is without jurisdiction inasmuch as no revision is provided either under the Mandi Act or under the Nirvachan Rules. As against it, Shri Verma supported the impugned Order and contended that revisional powers could be exercised by the Commissioner by taking recourse to Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'Code'). 6. This petition must succeed. 7. The orders (Annexures P-5 & P-6) were passed under Rule 10 of the Nirvachan Rules, which reads as follows :-- "10. Disposal of Claims and Objections.-- (1) The Registration Officer shall, after holding such summary inquiry into the claims or objections as he thinks fit, record his decision in writing and shall make available on demand copy of such decision to the objector free of charge forthwith. (2)....... ......... ........ (3) The Registration Officer shall amend the voters' list in accordance with his decision. (2)....... ......... ........ (3) The Registration Officer shall amend the voters' list in accordance with his decision. (4) The Voters' list so amended shall subject to the decision in appeal, if any, be final and a copy thereof duly signed by the Registration Officer shall be kept in his office and another copy deposited in the office of District Election Officer. (5) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Registration Officer may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority within 7 days of such decision. Every appeal shall be presented, in writing, to the Appellate Authority accompanied with a copy of the decision of the Registration Officer. The Appellate Authority, after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing and making such enquiry as it deems fit, shall pass suitable orders expeditiously and in the event of succeeding, direct the Registration Officer to amend the voters' list to give affect to its decision. The decision of the Appellate Authority shall be final. Provided that............ 8. No revision is provided against the Order passed in appeal under Rule 10 (5) or under the Mandi Act. On the contrary Rule 10 clearly lays down that the voters' list so amended shall subject to the decision in appeal be final. Sub-rule (5) further provides that the decision of the Appellate Authority shall be final. A bare reading of these provisions would show that finality has been attached to the orders passed in appeal under Rule 10 leaving no scope either for review or revision of that order. 9. The impugned Order has been passed by respondent No. 4 by taking recourse to Section 50 of the Code, Power of revision under Section 50 of the Code can be exercised only against an Order passed by a Revenue Officer. The term 'Revenue Officer' has been defined under Section 2(1) (u) of the Code, to mean such Revenue Officer as the State Government may, by notification direct to discharge the function of a Revenue Officer under any provision of the Code. It refers only to its use in any provision of the Code and does not give it a general definition. A Revenue Officer appointed under the Code, besides his normal functions as Revenue Officer, has also to act in various capacities as an Executive Officer. He is also assigned judicial and quasi judicial functions under various other laws. It refers only to its use in any provision of the Code and does not give it a general definition. A Revenue Officer appointed under the Code, besides his normal functions as Revenue Officer, has also to act in various capacities as an Executive Officer. He is also assigned judicial and quasi judicial functions under various other laws. A Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) is also appointed as Executive Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Any Order passed by such SDO while exercising powers of the Executive Magistrate, cannot be challenged in appeal or revision by taking recourse to the provisions of the M.P.L.R. Code. Similarly, a SDO appointed as Appellate Authority under the Nirvachan Rules cannot be termed as Revenue Officer and his orders cannot be challenged in revision by taking recourse to Section 50 of the Code. A SDO hearing appeals under Rule 10 of the Nirvachan Rules does not act as a Revenue Officer within the meaning of Section 50 of the Code. 10. From the foregoing discussions it therefore inevitably follows that the Order (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No. 4 was clearly without jurisdiction. The petition thus succeeds and is allowed. The impugned Order (Annexure P-8) is quashed. There shall be however no Order as to costs.