Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 914 (MP)

JEEVAN LAL v. STATE OF M. P.

2007-08-21

RAJENDRA MENON

body2007
Judgment ( 1. ) CHALLENGING the order Annexure P/1 dated 21-4-2003 passed by Collector, district Shivpuri exercising powers of revision under section 50 of m. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and interference made in a order dated 17-8-1995 passed by Naib Tehsildar exercising powers under the Madhya Pradesh krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam, 1984) petitioner has filed this petition. ( 2. ) PETITIONER claims to be a agriculturist and permanent resident of village mamonikhurd, Tehsil Karera, District Shivpuri (MP ). It is stated that petitioner is a landless person, has no means of livelihood, when the Adhiniyam, 1984 was incorporated, petitioner was in possession of land bearing Survey No. 785 measuring 1. 60 hectares prior to 2nd October, 1984. He had filed a application under the aforesaid Adhiniyam, 1984 seeking conferral of bhoomiswami rights on him in accordance to section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 1984. It is stated that the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner was processed by the Naib Tehsildar, tehsil - Karera, district Shivpuri in accordance with provisions of the adhiniyam, 1984 and after considering the same, a order was issued in accordance with statutory rules. After the order Annexure P/3 was passed on 17-8-1995, the certificate issued under Rule 6 is Annexure P/4. Grievance of the petitioner is that after about six years, respondent No. 4 - Komal filed a complaint before the Collector by filing revision under section 50 of M. P. Land revenue Code, 1959. The said revision has been entertained and allotment made to the petitioner vide Annexure P/3 dated 17-8-1995 and certificate granted vide annexure P/4 is cancelled. Inter alia contending that under the Adhiniyam, 1984, no revision is maintainable before the Collector challenge is made to the order passed by the Collector exercising powers of revisions. ( 3. ) SHRI Shivendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner argued that the adhiniyam, 1984 is silent with regard to applicability of the provisions of M. P. Land Revenue Code, appeal and revision provisions contained under the said code and the Collector was not authorized to exercise jurisdiction under section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and therefore, it is stated that order passed by the Collector is unsustainable. It is further argued that revision entertained after delay of six years is unsustainable and in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Bharosi Sharma vs. State of m. P. and others, 2002 (3) MPLJ 189 , it is argued that Collector should have refused to entertain the revision as it was beyond the period of limitation and delay was not properly explained. Finally, it was argued that respondent No. 4 has no locus standi to file the revision and therefore, interference in the matter by the Collector at the instance of respondent No. 4, is unsustainable. ( 4. ) REFUTING the aforesaid contentions and inviting my attention to the provisions of sections 44, 31 and 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, Smt. Ami Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents/state argued that even though appeal or revision under section 44 was not maintainable, the provisions of section 50 pertaining to a revision is applicable to the proceedings held under the Adhiniyam, 1984, in respect thereof she invites my attention to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of m. P. vs. M/s Triyug Talkies and another, 1999 RN 223, accordingly, she submits that exercise of powers of revision by the Collector is proper. ( 5. ) AS far as the delay in entertaining the revision is concerned, Shri A. K. Nirankari, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 invites my attention to the observations made by the Collector in para 4 of the impugned order and submitted that as mandatory provisions of issuance notice and condition of 30 days to file petition is not complied with, respondent No. 4 has filed revision only when he got knowledge and Collector has considered the same, therefore, no case is made out for interference now in this petition. As far as the locus standi of respondent No. 4 is concerned, it is stated that respondent No. 4 is also a landless person and was only entitled for allotment of land and petitioner was not entitled for allotment and as right of respondent No. 4 to receive the land was adversrly affected, he has right to challenge the same. Accordingly, it is argued that on the ground of locus standi, the order passed in revision cannot be interfered with. ( 6. Accordingly, it is argued that on the ground of locus standi, the order passed in revision cannot be interfered with. ( 6. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for parties and on a perusal of the record, it is seen that first ground raised by Shri Shivendra Singh with regard to power of collector to entertain the revision is unsustainable in view of the law laid down in the case of Triyug Talkies and others (supra ). In the aforesaid case after considering the provisions of sections 31, 44, 50 and 56 of the M. P. Land revenue Code, 1959 it has been held that powers of revision under section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code can be exercised not only against any order of revenue Officer passed under the Code but can be exercised also against any order passed under any other enactment for the time being in force. In para 12 and 13 of aforesaid judgment it is so held by the learned Judge; "12. In this respect, it is necessary to see and distinguish the language differently used in section 44 providing for an appeal and section 50 (1) providing for a remedy of revision. Section 44 (1) opens out with following language" "44. Appeal and appellate authorities - (1) Save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order under this Code or the rules made thereunder. . . . . . " From the above provisions contained in section 44 it is clear that an appeal shall lie from every original order under this Code. If this provision is compared with section 50 (1) of the Code, it is clear that section 50 does not restrict the power of revision only against the orders passed under the Code or the rules framed thereunder. Under section 50 (1) the language employed is that the Board of Revenue or commissioner or Settlement Commissioner or Collector or Settlement officer may any time suo motu or on the application made by any party call for and examine the record of any proceedings of any Revenue officer subordinate to it. The revisional power of the Revisional authority under section 50 of the Code, therefore, is not restricted to orders passed under the Code but it also extends to orders passed by any revenue Officer under any enactment for the time being in force. The revisional power of the Revisional authority under section 50 of the Code, therefore, is not restricted to orders passed under the Code but it also extends to orders passed by any revenue Officer under any enactment for the time being in force. This is made doubly clear by defining and, construing the work order by giving a wide meaning under section 56 of the Code reproduced above. "13. From the aforesaid examination of the provisions of the Code, it is amply clear that orders passed by a Revenue Officer in exercise of power under the Code or any other enactment for the time being in force is subject to revision under section 50 of the Code. " Keeping in view the aforesaid principles as indicated hereinabove, the first objection raised by Shri Shivendra Singh with regard to jurisdiction of the collector to entertain a revision is unsustainable and is accordingly rejected. ( 7. ) AS far as the delay in filing the revision petition is concerned, a perusal of the reasons indicated by the Collector in para 4 of the impugned order annexure P/1 indicates that there was material illegality and irregularities committed in the matter of allotment made and conferral right to the petitioner under section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 1984. The statutory period of notice and receiving objections was not complied with and the entire proceedings was concluded within 25 days, it is seen the application was received on 23-7-1995 and allotment was made on 17-8-1995. It is found that time fixed for calling objections was not granted and objections could not be filed as the matter was decided well before the period stipulated for receiving objections. Under such circumstances, as large scale violation of statutory provisions has been found, principles laid down in the case of Ram Bharosi Sharma (supra) will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Case in hand is a case where large scale irregularities is committed and as such exercise of powers of revisions even though beyond the period of limitation is permissible. In the case of Ram bharosi Sharma (supra) interference by this Court was made as no irregularities or illegality in the matter of allotment at the very first instance was found. Case in hand is a case where large scale irregularities is committed and as such exercise of powers of revisions even though beyond the period of limitation is permissible. In the case of Ram bharosi Sharma (supra) interference by this Court was made as no irregularities or illegality in the matter of allotment at the very first instance was found. That being so, in the light of the irregularities and illegalities committed in the present case as is evident from para 4 of the impugned order Annexure P/1, on the ground of limitation, relief cannot be granted to the petitioner and interference made in the matter. Revisional authority under section 50 of Land Revenue Code has power to exercise even suo motu powers of revision and in the facts and circumstances of this case merely because the powers of revision is exercised after six years interference cannot be made. The facts and circumstances of each case and the manner in which the Government land is allotted has to be taken note of by this Court before interfering in the matter on the ground of exercise of suo motu power of revision by the competent authority after the period of limitation. No writ or direction can be issued for setting aside suo motu powers of revision wherein the facts and circumstances of a case and the manner of allotment of Government land indicates irregularity committed. That being so, on the second ground raised by Shri Shivendra Singh, interference in the matter cannot be made in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 8. ) AS far as locus standi of respondent No. 4 is concerned, respondent No. 4 is also a Adiwasi and a landless person entitled to allotment of land. That being so, he is very much interested in Government land which is to be allotted to each landless persons and Collector has interfered at the instance of the said person, therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No. 4 has no locus standi to seek interference in the matter. Respondent No. 4 being a Adiwasi landless person has a right to file revision, therefore, on the aforesaid grounds, no case is made out for interference. ( 9. Respondent No. 4 being a Adiwasi landless person has a right to file revision, therefore, on the aforesaid grounds, no case is made out for interference. ( 9. ) ACCORDINGLY, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, finding no substance in the contentions advanced by Shri Shivendra Singh, petition stands dismissed without any order so as to costs. Petition dismissed.