Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 735 (MP)

Ramrati v. State of M. P.

2013-07-01

S.K.Gangele

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 12.7.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector in suo motu revision. 3. The petitioner pleaded that she purchased the land from Ramlakhan and Hakim Singh Gurjar vide sale deed dated 8.10.2010. Thereafter, her name was recorded in khasra entries. Vide order dated 12.7.2012 (Annexure P/1) without giving any notice to the petitioner, Collector Gwalior cancelled the settlement in favour of Ramlakhan and Hakim Singh Gurjar. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the aforesaid order is not binding to the petitioner because no notice was issued to her. 4. The Collector had taken cognizance under suo motu revision in exercise of powers conferred to him under section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, against the order dated 8.4.2005, by which the land was settled in favour of Ramlakhan and Hakim Singh Gurjar. Earlier a show cause notice was issued to the aforesaid persons. The aforesaid persons refused to take notice, hence, the Collector passed the order. It is mentioned by the Collector that in passing the order of settlement, no proclamation was issued neither survey numbers were mentioned in the proclamation. There was no report that the proclamation was affixed in the office of Tahsildar. It is further mentioned by the Collector that the persons Ramlakhan and Hakim Singh Gurjar in oral evidence deposed that they had been doing agriculture over the land for the last 10-15 years, however, in support of this contention, no documentary evidence even the khasra entries were produced before the authority. The Collector further observed that the Additional Tahsildar did not inspect the spot, which was necessary for settlement of land neither there was proof of possession of the persons over the land. Settlement of land was contrary to the directions issued by the Government. 5. From the aforesaid facts, prima facie, in my opinion, it appears that Ramlakhan and Hakim Singh Gurjar obtained the order of settlement by playing a fraud because there was no documentary evidence produced before the authority in regard to possession of the persons over the land. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry and others v. Govt. From the aforesaid facts, prima facie, in my opinion, it appears that Ramlakhan and Hakim Singh Gurjar obtained the order of settlement by playing a fraud because there was no documentary evidence produced before the authority in regard to possession of the persons over the land. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V.Papayya Sastry and others v. Govt. of A.P. and others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221 has held as under in regard to judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud: “A judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment, decree or order – by the first Court or by the final Court – has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.” 7. When prima facie there is evidence that the order was passed by bypassing all the norms, then certainly the Collector had power and authority to take the matter in suo motu revision, in that circumstance, there was no question of limitation as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgment of this court in Ranveer Singh and others v. State of M.P. reported in 2010 RN 409 2010 (3) JLJ 77 = 2010 (5) MPHT 137 is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Similarly, the judgments in the case of Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and another v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2012 RN 35 = 2011 (5) MPHT 47 and Kamla Singh v. Alka Singh and others reported in 2011 RN 273 = 2011 (2) MPJR 84 are distinguishable in facts. 8. In regard to the fact that the order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, from the order itself it is clear that the notice was issued to Ramlakhan and Hakim Singh Gurjar, however, they refused to take notice. Prior to passing of the order, they executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, in accordance with section 50 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959, the petitioner is the aggrieved party and she had a right of hearing before the authority. 9. Prior to passing of the order, they executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, in accordance with section 50 of the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959, the petitioner is the aggrieved party and she had a right of hearing before the authority. 9. Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, petition is disposed of with the following directions :- (i) That the matter is remanded back to the Collector. It is directed that the Collector shall pass an order after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Collector on 15.7.2013. (ii) Because there are serious allegations of illegality, in such circumstances, up to passing of the order by the Collector, by which the land has been recorded in favour of the Govt., shall remain as it is, however, the final out come would depend on the order that may be passed by the Collector and upto that period the impugned order 12.7.2012 (Annexure P/1) shall be kept in abeyance. The observation made by this court in this order be treated as prima facie and the Collector is at liberty to record its own finding on the basis of record of the case after hearing the petitioner. No order as to costs.