Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1205 (MP)

Bhagwati Bai. v. State of M. P.

2005-11-29

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the order Annexure P-1, dated 3rd August, 1994 passed in Revision No. 206/four-90 by the Board of Revenue, M. P. , Gwalior rejecting the prayer of petitioners to take the matter in suo motu against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in Case No. 255/a-90/b-3/74-75. ( 2. ) AN application under Section 42 of the M. P. Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (in short the Act) was submitted by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue praying therein that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur in Case No. 255/a-90/b-3/74-75 be set aside. Though the application which was filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue has not been annexed to this petition, but on going through the order it is revealed that the contention of petitioners is that land in question is Joint Hindu Family property, therefore, the Competent Authority under the Act in law in not registering separate cases against petitioner Bhagwati Bai and her sons. As a matter of fact, each case ought to have been registered separately. This objection was raised before the Additional Commissioner but the same was not decided. On these premised submissions, it was prayed before the Board of Revenue that the matter be taken-up for hearing in suo motu. ( 3. ) THE State Government before the Board of Revenue submitted that there is no cogent reason to take the matter in suo motu and prayed that the application be dismissed. ( 4. ) THE Board of Revenue has dismissed the application by the impugned order. ( 5. ) SHRI Ankit Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that since the land in question was a Joint Hindu Family property, therefore, separate case ought to have been registered by the Competent Authority constituted under the Act. The Authority erred in law in not registering the cases separately against holder Bhagwati Bai and her sons. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh and Ors. v. Mst. The Authority erred in law in not registering the cases separately against holder Bhagwati Bai and her sons. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh and Ors. v. Mst. Bhagirathi , AIR1966 SC 405 , [1966 ]1 SCR606 and it is submitted that merely because mutation is in favour of the widow, it can not be said that the property is exclusively owned by her. ( 6. ) PER contra, Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate argued in support of the impugned order. ( 7. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 8. ) THE Board of Revenue has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioners for taking the matter in suo motu. It has been categorically held by the Board of Revenue that in the Revenue Record of 1973-74 which is also available in the record of Additional Commissioner, the disputed land area 57. 63 acres is of Bhagwati Bai and a case was registered under the provisions of the Act against Bhagwati Bai which can not be said to be erroneous. It be seen that after the decision of the case by the Additional Commissioner, an appeal was filed by petitioner Bhagwati Bai before the Board of Revenue which was allowed on 3-5-1978 and the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority under the Act to redecide the matter under Section 4 (1) of the Act. It be seen that the petitioners did not raise this objection before the Competent Authority and allowed the said Authority to decide the case. This objection was also not raised before the Board of Revenue when the order of the Additional Commissioner was assailed. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the matter should have been taken-up by the Board of Revenue in suo motu. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no nexus with the present case because no such objection was ever raised when the appeal was heard by the Board of Revenue and the same was allowed on 3-5-1978. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no nexus with the present case because no such objection was ever raised when the appeal was heard by the Board of Revenue and the same was allowed on 3-5-1978. ( 9. ) RESULTANTLY, this petition is found to be devoid of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.