Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 412 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Shiv Enterprises

2020-03-13

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2020
ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioners/State Government are challenging the order dated 9.11.2015 passed by the President, Board of Revenue, M.P. Gwalior. 2. The land in question was personally granted to one Laxminarayan and had been recorded in his name. The family of the said Laxminarayan was also doing worship in the Laxminarayan Temple. Without there being any basis and competent order, on the land in question name of temple is added. Therefore, an application for correction of error was made to the Tehsildar and vide order dated 31.5.2005 the said mistake was corrected by the Tehsildar. The Collector in exercise of suo moto powers of revision, issued notice to the respondent, which was challenged before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 2.11.006 set aside the action of the Collector holding that the land in question has always been a private property of Laxminarayan and his successors and neither is of Temple nor of the Government (Nazul). The said order was challenged by the State Government by filing a writ petition No. 7505/2007. The said writ petition was dismissed on 13.12.2007 by again holding that the land to be a private land. Against the said order the petitions/State Government has challenged the order by filing a writ appeal No. 674/008, which was also dismissed vide order dated 2.11.2008. Hence, the order passed in the writ petition had attained finality. Thereafter, the name of the successor Pandit Shyamsundar Trivedi was recorded. Thereafter, he sold the land to one Smt. Manju Khandelwal and her name was duly mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, Smt.Manju Khandelwal sold the land to respondent/Shiv Enterprises and their name was also mutated. The respondent got various permissions and also diversion, which was granted after obtaining various NOCs.including NOC issued by the Tehsildar, Nazul etc. certifying the land is a private. Thereafter, the respondent has developed the said land and completion certificate has also been issued. That, the diversion order was passed, according to the order dated 9.7.2013 passed by this Court in W.P. 1439/2013 on 9.7.2013 and the respondent has deposited a huge amount of premium and land revenue and the said order is executed and implemented also. Thereafter, the respondent has developed the said land and completion certificate has also been issued. That, the diversion order was passed, according to the order dated 9.7.2013 passed by this Court in W.P. 1439/2013 on 9.7.2013 and the respondent has deposited a huge amount of premium and land revenue and the said order is executed and implemented also. Thereafter, after lapse of more than 7 years of the decision of writ petition and writ appeal and after a lapse of 2 years of diversion order, the SDO issued a notice of suo moto review. This notice was challenged by the respondent before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 9.11.2015 has set aside the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/State have filed the present petition. 3. Learned Government Advocate appeared on behalf of the State submits that the Board of Revenue had erred in setting aside the notice issued by the S.D.O. He further submits that against the two orders of the review in respect of different proceedings could not have been compared to hold the subsequent proceedings being barred by resjudicata. He also submits that, the Board of Revenue had erred in holding that the notice and the proceedings initiated for the review of the diversion order is barred as the proceedings for review of the order of correction in revenue records was set aside with the liberty to initiate proceedings for the determination of the title in respect of the subject property. The Board of Revenue had erred in setting aside the said notice by applying the principles of res judicata. 4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the issue regarding ownership has been settled in revenue proceedings right from the Tahsildar, the Collector and the Board of Revenue. After the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities as well this Court the land was diverted for residential purpose after obtaining NOCs from all departments. He further submits that the order has been passed in the year 2015 and the same cannot have been reopened after a lapse of about 3 years. In the light of the aforesaid, he submits that the Board of Revenue has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order. 6. In the light of the aforesaid, he submits that the Board of Revenue has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order. 6. In the present case, the petitioner/State Government has challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue. In the present, one Laxminarayan, who is the owner of the land in question and his name has been recorded in the revenue record. The family of the said Laxminarayan was also doing worship in the Laxminarayan Temple. The name of the Temple was recorded as Bhoomiswami in the revenue records. The respondent thereafter moved an application for correction of the error before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar vide order dated 31.5.2005 has allowed the said application and the mistake was corrected. The Collector in exercise of sou moto powers of revision, issued notice to the respondent, which was challenged before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 2.1.2006 set aside the action of the Collector holding that the land in question has always been a private property of Laxminarayan and his successors and neither is of Temple nor of the Government(Nazul). The said order was challenged by the State Government by filing a writ petition No. 7505/007. The said writ petition was dismissed on 13.12.2007. Thereafter a writ appeal was filed against the said order by the State Government, which was also dismissed vide order dated 2.11.2008. Hence, the order passed in the writ petition No. 7505/007 has attained finality. Thereafter, the name of the successor Pandit Shyamsundar Trivedi was recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, he sold the land to one Smt. Manju Khandelwal and thereafter, Smt. Manju Khandelwal sold the land to respondent/Shiv Enterprises and their name was also mutated. The respondent got various permissions and also diversion, which was granted after obtaining various NOCs. On the basis of the NOCs the respondent has developed the said land and completion certificate has also been issued. Thereafter, after a lapse of more than seven years of decision of the writ petition and writ appeal and after a lapse of two years of diversion order the SDO issued notice of sou moto review. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision filed by the respondent. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision filed by the respondent. Against the said order this writ petition is filed. 7. From the record, it reveals that for about 3 years, the petitioner/State has not raised any objection regarding the diversion etc. But, as soon as the entire development work was done and the respondent was get only building permission from the Municipal Corporation, Indore, the present petition has been filed after a long and unexplained delay of about 3 years making a false declaration that there is no delay in filing of the petition. 8. From the record, it also reveals that, so far as the title is concerned, the same has attained the finality after decision of the Board of Revenue on 2.1.2006 confirmed in W.P. No. 7505/2007 on 13.2.2007 and writ appeal No. 674/2008 also dismissed. Thereafter the land was transferred several times and mutated in the names of purchaser by the petitioner/State itself. Hence all these attained finality and cannot be disturbed or challenged. Similarly, the diversion order passed after the order in W.P. No. 1439/2013 has already been executed and implemented also. The Revenue Board again decided the matter in the year 2015 and now after lapse of 3 years can the clock reversed particularly when title cannot be disputed. 9. In the present case, the SDO had issued notice of sou moto review after lapse of 2 years of the diversion order. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranvir Singh has held that power of sou motu review cannot be exercised after a period of 16 years. The land in question is a private land and there is no dispute with regard to the title between the original land owner and the State Government. The order of diversion was passed by taking into consideration of the entire record, previous litigation etc. and after obtaining various NOCs and after verification of the record. The said order was passed on 21.11.2013. After a lapse of two years, the Collector illegally and incompetently directed the SDO to review the order of diversion. An executed order of diversion cannot be reviewed by again by raising an incompetent and already adjudicated issue of title. The question of title cannot be raised or decided in diversion proceedings. 10. The said order was passed on 21.11.2013. After a lapse of two years, the Collector illegally and incompetently directed the SDO to review the order of diversion. An executed order of diversion cannot be reviewed by again by raising an incompetent and already adjudicated issue of title. The question of title cannot be raised or decided in diversion proceedings. 10. It has further been mentioned that the title, mutation and correction in favour of the original owner namely; Shri Shyamsundar Trivedi has been maintained and has attained finality. The question of title of the original owner Shri Shyamsundar Trivedi has been finally settled and he had been held to be the owner of the land in question, the respondent had purchased the said land by paying huge consideration through a registered sale deeds. The name of the respondent was also mutated in the revenue record after proper enquiry in legal proceedings in the year 2011. The various departments including the present petitioners have repeatedly issued NOCs accepting the land in question as a private land for the purposes of granting various permissions specifically mentioned therein that the land in question is neither a government land nor a Nazul land. Accordingly, various permissions such as sanction of layout, diversion, granting of permission for development, licence, etc. were granted. As a matter of fact the respondent apart from paying sale consideration of the land in question has invested a huge amount by way of permission fees, diversion fees, etc. and various other fees and has invested a huge amount in development of the said land and the development is already complete, therefore, at this juncture, after a lapse of more than 10 years of the order passed by this Court in writ petition and after a lapse of about 3 years of the order passed by the Revenue Board has filed the present petition. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner have acted illegally. 11. In the light of aforesaid, I find the Board of Revenue has no committed any error while passing the impugned order dated 9.11.2015. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed as being sans merit.