Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 589 (MP)

Umrao Singh v. Lal Singh

2016-07-21

SUJOY PAUL

body2016
ORDER 1. With the consent, finally heard. 2. This petition is directed against the order of Board of Revenue dated 2.5.2016 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 27.4.1998. 3. Criticizing this order, Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He contended that the revision was filed by the other side on 2.5.2016 before the Board of Revenue. On the same date, without issuing notice to the other side, learned Board allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 27.4.1998. He submits that this runs contrary to section 50(5) of M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code). 4. Prayer is opposed by Shri Jain, learned counsel for the respondents by taking assistance from the preliminary objection filed on the aspect of maintainability of the petition. He advanced two fold contentions. Firstly, it is urged that Board of Revenue has not been impleaded as party respondent and, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. Secondly, it is urged that the land was sold to the third party and now mutation has taken place in favour of the said third party. 5. No other point is pressed by the parties. 6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 7. The Board of Revenue has passed a judicial order as per the provisions of Land Revenue Code. Against that order, this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is settled in law that judicial authority/Courts are not required to be impleaded when their judgments/orders are called in question. Thus, I am unable to hold that this petition suffers from non-impleadment of necessary parties. So far as the second contention of Shri Jain is concerned, I am not inclined to look into the said aspect. Before this Court, the order of Board of Revenue dated 2.5.2016 is under challenged. This Court is required to examine the legality, validity and propriety of the said order. The order shows that revision was filed on 2.5.2016 only. On the same date without issuing notice to the other side, the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 27.4.1998. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by Board of Revenue is totally unknown to law. The order impugned before it dated 27.4.1998 was in favour of the petitioner. On the same date without issuing notice to the other side, the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 27.4.1998. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by Board of Revenue is totally unknown to law. The order impugned before it dated 27.4.1998 was in favour of the petitioner. Thus, without putting the petitioner to notice and without following the principles of natural justice, it was not open to the Board of Revenue to allow the revision and set aside the said order. The principles of natural justice are codified in the statute in the shape of section 50(5) of the Code, which reads as under :- “50(5) No order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard.”� 9. Thus, it is clear that the Board of Revenue has committed a serious procedural irregularity/illegality. Resultantly, the order dated 2.5.2016 is set aside. The Board is directed to proceed further with the said revision in accordance with law. 10. I am constrained to observe that this Court has noticed that Board of Revenue has passed similar orders in various cases where a final order of an inferior revenue authority is set aside on the first date of hearing without issuing notice and without hearing the other side. This is clearly against the mandate of sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Code and principles of natural justice. The Board of Revenue needs to be careful on this aspect. The decision making process should be transparent and as per the principles of natural justice and governing statute. I hope that the Board of Revenue will be careful in future. The Registry of this Court shall send a copy of this order to the learned Member of Board of Revenue, who has passed the order dated 2.5.2016 (Annexure P-5). The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.