Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 404 (MP)

Maya Lalchandani v. Board of Revenue

2009-03-30

R.S.GARG, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2009
ORDER Garg, J. -- 1. The petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the learned President, Board of Revenue in Appeal Case No. AJ 661-PBR/2003 have filed this petition submitting inter alia that the Board of Revenue was obliged to decide the matter in accordance with the Rules fumed under section 109/110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and Revenue Board had no jurisdiction to issue injunction till disposal of the dispute relating to the title. 2. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners after taking us through Rule 32 of the Rules framed under section 109/110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (referred to as 'Code') submitted that whenever a question relating to title is raised then summary enquiry is to be made by the Competent Revenue Authority and on the strength of the findings orders have to be passed in favour of the person best entitled for mutation. 3. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, however, submitted that the Board of Revenue in exercise of its powers under section 32 read with section 43 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code could issue such a direction as the Board of Revenue was of the opinion that there being complicated questions of title being involved in the matter the parties should be asked to go to the civil Court. 4. After going through the order passed by the learned President, Board of Revenue and taking into consideration the legal provisions, we are of the opinion that the directions issued in Paragraph 7 of the order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be allowed to stand. Section 32 of the Land Revenue Code talks of the inherent powers of the Revenue Authorities while section 43 talks of applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is to be seen from section 32 that nothing in the Land Revenue Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice or as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. Section 43 simply provides that unless otherwise expressly provided in the Code, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure shall, so far as may be, followed in all proceedings under the Code. Section 43 simply provides that unless otherwise expressly provided in the Code, the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure shall, so far as may be, followed in all proceedings under the Code. Section 43 in no case would authorize a Revenue Authority to grant an injunction. Section 43 simply provides that the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure so far as may be followed in all proceedings under the Code. It is also to be seen from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure that an injunction can be granted only by civil Court and by none else. Section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code only talks 0 the inherent powers of the Revenue Courts where they are required to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. The powers under section 32 can be exercised within the Code itself and not beyond the Code. If the Revenue Authority does not have the power to grant injunction then the Board of Revenue also could not grant injunction. 5. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the provisions of law, we set aside the order passed by the learned President, Board of Revenue and remand the matter back to the said Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law and the observations made by us. 6. The contesting respondent shall appear before the President, Board of Revenue on 27.4.2009 along with a copy of this order. The Board of Revenue shall decide the matter preferably within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. 7. The petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.