Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 862 (MP)

Seema Bansal v. State of M. P.

2019-12-12

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2019
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 25.6.2018 passed by the respondent No.2-Board of Revenue in Revision No.3189/2018. 3. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 25.6.2018 on two grounds; firstly, that the petitioner was not served any notice before passing the said order; and, secondly, the revision under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, itself, was not maintainable against the order passed by the Tehsildar on 5.5.2018. Thus, on these two short points, this order has been assailed and it is submitted by Shri Agrawal that the impugned order be quashed. 4. Shri Atul Choudhry, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 on the other hand has opposed the prayer, however no provision could be shown to this Court under which a revision can be directly maintained before the Board of Revenue against the order passed by the Tehsildar. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the record, this Court finds that so far as the contention of the petitioner is that no notice was served on him is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order dated 25.6.2018 itself reveals that there is no reference in the aforesaid order that any notice was ever served on the petitioner before passing the same. Even otherwise, no such document has been placed on record by the respondents to demonstrate that the petitioner was also served the notice of revision before passing of the order by the Board of Revenue. Thus, on this count only, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Even otherwise, no such document has been placed on record by the respondents to demonstrate that the petitioner was also served the notice of revision before passing of the order by the Board of Revenue. Thus, on this count only, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. So far as the legal objection regarding maintainability of the revision directly before the Board of Revenue against the order passed by the Tahsildar is concerned, this Court finds force with the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner that no such revision can be maintained directly before the Board of Revenue specially in the light of sub-section 2 of section 50, which clearly provides that the Board or the Commissioner or the Settlement Officer or the Collector shall not, under this section vary or reverse any order against which an appeal lies either to the Board or to any revenue officer subordinate threreto, and admittedly, there is an appeal provided against the order passed by the Tehsildar before the SDO under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. In view of the said legal position, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this count also. 6. As a result, the order dated 25.6.2018 is hereby quashed with a liberty to the respondent No.4 to prefer an appeal as provided under the law against the order passed by the Tahsidlar and if such an appeal is preferred within four weeks' time, the same shall be decided by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law without raising any objection as to the limitation within a further period of 3 months. 7. Also heard on I.A. No. 14308/2018 and I.A. No.14980/2018, which are the applications for intervention. 8. Learned counsel for the intervenors submitted that they have also preferred a revision directly against the order passed by the Tehsildar before the Board of Revenue and they may also be allowed to prefer the appeal before the Competent Officer as provided in the case of the petitioner. 9. Prayer appears to be reasonable. 10. In the circumstance, the intervenors herein are also at liberty to prefer the appeal to be decided by the Competent Officer as provided in the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. .....................