Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1243 (MP)

Sukhram v. State of M. P.

2020-12-02

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2020
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order 6.2.2017 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No.791-1/2012 and order dated 23.2.2012 passed by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, District Morena in Appeal No.51/2011-12, by which the appeal filed by the petitioners before Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena was dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that 1/4th of the land bearing survey No.775/2, area 3 hectares was purchased by petitioner No.1 and forefathers of petitioners No.2 to 13 from the earlier owner, namely, Tulsi vide sale deed dated 17.2.1969 and the names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue records. Thereafter, it appears that the names of the petitioners were deleted and the status quo ante was restored on the basis of order dated 5.8.1970 passed by SDO (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind. It is submitted that the moment the petitioners came to know about deletion of their names, they preferred an appeal against the order dated 5.8.1970 passed by SDO (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena along with an application under section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, however, without verifying as to whether the order dated 5.8.1970 was ever passed by SDO (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind or not, the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena by order dated 23.2.2012 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioners have not filed the certified copy of the impugned order and further, the appeal was filed after 42 long years and the petitioners have failed to give any sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena, the petitioners preferred a revision which too was dismissed by Board of Revenue by order dated 6.2.2017, on the similar grounds. 4. Since it is the specific stand of the petitioners that the order dated 5.8.1970 was never passed by SDO (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind, therefore, this Court had sought a report from the Office of SDO (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind as to whether the order dated 05/08/1970 was ever passed by the said Court or not ? The SDO (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind by his letter dated 30.5.2019 has informed the Government Advocate that the order dated 5.8.1970 was never passed. The SDO (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind by his letter dated 30.5.2019 has informed the Government Advocate that the order dated 5.8.1970 was never passed. The copy of the letter dated 30.5.2019 sent by SDO (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind is reproduced as under :- dk;kZy; vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ xksgn] ftyk fHk.M ¼e-iz-½ Øekad 837@v-fo-v-@jhMj@2019 xksgn] fnukad 30-5-2019 izfr] Jh jktsUnz tSu 'kkldh; vf/koDrk egkf/koDrk dk;kZy; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j fo"k; %& WP No. 4047@2017 lq[kjke vkfn fo#) e-iz- 'kkluA lanHkZ%& vkidk i= Øekad 2973 fnukad 26-3-2019 ds ikyu esaA fo"k;karxZr lanfHkZr i= ds ek/;e ls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; [k.MihB Xokfy;j }kjk bl U;k;ky; ds U;k;ky;hu izdj.k Øekad 14@70 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 5-8-1970 dk ewy vfHkys[k vko';d :i ls pkgk x;k gSA mDr vfHkys[k ds laca/k esa U;k;ky; ds o"kZ 1969&70 ,oa 1970&71 dh nk;jk iath dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ftlesa fdlh Hkh en ds izdj.k esa fnukad 5-8-1970 dks vkns'k ikfjr gksuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA vr% tkudkjh vkidh vksj lknj izsf"kr gSA vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ xksgn] ftyk&fHk.M iz- Øekad @v-fo-v-@jhMj@2019 xksgn] fnukad 30-5-2019 izfrfyfi%& dysDVj egksn;] ftyk fHk.M dh vksj lwpukFkZ izsf"krA vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ xksgn] ftyk&fHk.M 5. Thus, it is clear that the names of the petitioners were deleted wrongly on the basis of non-existing order. It is really unfortunate that Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena as well as Board of Board conveniently ignored this aspect of the matter. This blunder which was committed by the revenue authorities should have been corrected by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena or Board of Revenue, but they have miserably failed to discharge their duties. A person should not be made to suffer for no fault on his part. The only fault on the part of the petitioners is that after they purchased the property in question, they got their names mutated and thereafter they were under bona fide belief that their rights would not be adversely affected by the revenue authorities by manipulating the revenue records on the basis of non-existing order. 6. Be that whatever it may. 7. The mistake which was committed by deleting the names of the petitioners, should have been corrected by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena or at least by Board of Revenue. 8. Be that as it may. 9. 6. Be that whatever it may. 7. The mistake which was committed by deleting the names of the petitioners, should have been corrected by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena or at least by Board of Revenue. 8. Be that as it may. 9. In the light of the letter dated 30.5.2019 sent by SDO (Revenue), Gohad, District Bhind, it is clear that the names of the petitioners were wrongly deleted from the revenue records. Accordingly, the order 6.2.2017 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No.791-1/2012 and the order dated 23.2.2012 passed by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, District Morena in Appeal No.51/2011-12 are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to immediately correct the Khasra Panchshala by restoring back the names of petitioners in the revenue records. 10. The petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the respondents to the petitioners within a period of one month from today. The respondents are further directed to file copy of acknowledgment of receipt of cost before the Principal Registrar of this Court within a period of 45 days from today.