Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 494 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Mangilal Bohare

2014-05-01

B.D.RATHI, S.K.GANGELE

body2014
JUDGMENT Rathi, J. -- 1. This appeal has been preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (M.P.) on being aggrieved by the order dated 24.9.1994 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.834/1986 (Mangilal and others v. State of M.P. and others). 2. The facts leading to filing the appeal may be summarized as under:- On 9.2.1961, Tahsildar, Guna auctioned some of the plots comprised in Survey No.883 and 656/1, which was duly sanctioned by the Collector and thereafter sale certificates were issued to the concerned persons. The petitioner Mangilal and others who came up before the writ Court were such of the persons in whose favour sale certificates were issued. Later on, it was found by the superior authority that process of auction initiated on the orders of the Collector was against the provisions of law. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up and notices were issued to the petitioners. But at the time of conclusion, it was opined by the Collector that since requisite permission for reviewing the decision by which sale certificates were issued is necessary, the matter be placed before the Board of Revenue for seeking permission under section 51 (1)(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called “the Code” for short), which was accorded to the Collector, Guna vide Annexure-P/12 dated 20.1.1971, by the Board of Revenue. 3. Against such a decision taken by the respondents, the petition was preferred before the writ Court, which was decided under the order impugned. The learned writ Court by the order dated 24.9.1994 held that such a review cannot be permitted after lapse of long passage of time and since the petitioners raised constructions they cannot be put to a more disadvantageous position. It was further held that the order Annexure-P/11 is not a final order which would nullify the sale transactions. By observing so, the petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/State contended that the order impugned is passed against the provisions of law inasmuch as ignoring the facts and material on record. By observing so, the petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/State contended that the order impugned is passed against the provisions of law inasmuch as ignoring the facts and material on record. By inviting attention of this Court to para 9 of the order impugned, it was contended that after the earlier order was passed by the Collector vide Annexure-P/11, further orders vide Annexures- RR/II dated 13.12.1972 and 22.12.1972 were issued after due notices to all such persons under which the sale proceedings and entire sale transaction came to an end, hence, there was nothing left to be considered again by the writ Court. It was further pointed out that after rendering the proceedings as nullified in consequence of the said orders dated 13.12.1972 and 22.12.1972, the possession was taken over from the purchasers and was handed over to the respondent No.6 herein, which would be evident from perusal of Annexures- R/1 and R/2, dated 22nd May, 1981 and 1st September, 1981, respectively. Therefore, whatever observed by the Collector in his earlier order Annexure-P/11 that has been washed out by the subsequent orders and in these state of affairs, the order passed by the writ Court is not in consonance with law and is liable to be set aside. 5. Having regards to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal is liable to be allowed (Sic as dismissed) for the reasons mentioned in the subsequent paragraphs. 6. The sale certificates which were issued were taken into consideration for cancellation by the Collector, Guna in Case No. B.121/69-70 under suo motu revision and after affording an opportunity of hearing order was passed on 26.9.1970. It was observed by the Collector,Guna that in violation of the provisions of section 162 of the Code (which was later on omitted by M.P.25 of 1964) as well as provisions of section 181 of the Code, disputed lands were auctioned and sale certificates were issued. It was observed by the Collector,Guna that in violation of the provisions of section 162 of the Code (which was later on omitted by M.P.25 of 1964) as well as provisions of section 181 of the Code, disputed lands were auctioned and sale certificates were issued. After a period of more than ten years when the matter was taken up for consideration by that time some houses were constructed on the respective plots by the allottees and because sale certificates were issued by his predecessor therefore, matter was referred under section 51(1)(i) of the Code to the Board of Revenue to accord permission for reviewing the matter. In view of this order, letter was written to the Board of Revenue and on 20.1.1971 vide letter No.103 it was informed by the Board of Revenue that the Collector, Guna is permitted to take up the disputed matter for consideration under suo motu revisional powers. 7. It is an admitted fact that after getting this permission, the matter was never opened and no notices were issued to the parties and even exparte order was also not passed by the Collector,Guna for cancellation of the sale certificates. In the aforesaid premises, it is thus clear that the sale certificates issued by the Collector, Guna were and are in existence. Therefore, the order dated 26.9.1970 passed by the Collector, Guna cannot be treated to be an order for cancellation of sale certificates passed in exercise of suo motu revisional powers. 8. At this stage, it is relevant to reproduce section 51(1)(i) of the Code, which runs as is under :- “51. Review of orders:- (1) The Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its/his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit: provided that - (i) if the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Collector of Settlement Officer thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Board, and if an Officer subordinate to a Collector or Settlement Officer proposes to review any order, whether passed by himself or by any predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in writing of the authority to whom he is immediately subordinates.” 9. It is further apparent that after getting permission under section 51(1)(i) under the Code from the Board of Revenue, the Collector, Guna was supposed to get suo motu case registered and thereafter notices were required to be issued to the affected parties and after affording opportunity of hearing, the order was to be passed by the Collector, Guna. But in the absence of following the above-mentioned procedure, it cannot be said that the observations made by the Collector for seeking necessary approval for taking the matter into consideration under suo motu powers should be treated to be an order passed finally in suo motu revisional jurisdiction. 10. Apart that, admittedly when certain houses were constructed by some of the holders over the respective plots in purview of sale certificates issued to them, then after a period of 55 years now it cannot be held that the construction raised by them is illegal. It also cannot be held that their sale certificates were not in existence. 11. After thus examining the matter to a rigorous test on the touchstone of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and another v. State of Maharastra and others (2014) 3 SCC 430 , this Court is of the considered view that the findings given by the learned writ Court are perfectly legal and not suffered from any infirmity or perversity. In other words, the order passed by the writ Court is well merited calling for no interference by this Court. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. ...............