Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 656 (MP)

Anirudh Rawat v. State of M. P.

2023-07-07

ASHWINI KUMAR RAI, B.R.PATIL

body2023
ORDER 1. This is an appeal, filed under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ''Code'' for brevity), against the order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020, issued by District Collector, Sheopur, Whereby the No Objection Certificate No. 235/2019-20/B-121 dated 24.2.2020, issued earlier by his predencessor for establishment of a Retail Outlet for Petrol, Diesel and CNG, was cancelled, On 6.7.2020, appeal was heard by the Learned Administrative Member and vide his detailed order No. Appeal 279/2020/Sheopur/L.R. dated 14.7.2020, the appeal was dismissed by the Learned Administrative Member at the admission stage itself, on account of the same being not maintainable in the light of provisions contained in section 44 of the Code. While doing so, he however gave liberty to the appeallant to approach the ompetent Court for the reliefs prayed for. This order of the Learned Administrative Member was challenged before the Gwalior Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP No. 10356/2020. The Gwalior Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, vide its order dated 23.8.2021 passed in the said WP No. 10356/2020, set aside the above-mentioned order dated 14.7.2020 of the Learned Administrative Member and remanded back the case to the Board of Revenue for fresh adjudication. That's how this appeal is before us now. 2. We have head the detailed arguments of the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties. We have also perused the records. 3. From the perusal of records, it is clear that the No Objection Certificate No. 235/2019-20/B-121 dated 24.2.2020, for revision of which District Collector, Sheopur initiated an undated note, addressed to the Commissioner, Chambal Division, seeking his permission under section 50 of the Code, on which the Commissioner, Chambal Division accorded his approval on 1.7.2020, which formed the basis for initiation of further action in this case, ultimately culminating in the issuance of the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 of District Collector, Sheopur, was not issued in exercise of any powers under the Code, rather it was issued undr Rule 144 of Petroleum Rules, 2002, framed in exercise of powers cnferred by Petroeum Act, 1934. That means the No Objection Certificate No. 235/2019-20/B-121 dated 24.2.2020, not having been issued in exercise of any powers under the Code, is not at order, because it does not fall within the definition of ''Order'' as contained in section 56 of the Code, which defines the ''Order'', for the purposes of Chapter V of the Code releating to Appeal, Revision and Review, to mean ''the formal expression of the decision given by the Board or a Revenue Officer in respect of any matter in exercise of powers under this Code.'' Once it is held that the No Objection Certificate No. 235/2019-20/B-121 dated 24.2.2020 is not an order for the purposes of Chapter V of the Code, there remains no room for doubt that for varying or cancelling that No Objection Certificate No. 235/2019-20/B-121 dated 24.2.2020, no recourse to the provisions of Chapter V of the Code relating to Appeal, Revision and Review is possible, because those provisions are available to be taken recourse to only in case of an order issued in exercise of powers conferrd under the code. Notwithstanding the above, for cancelling the No Objection CErtiticate No. 235/2019-20/B-121 dated 24.2.2020, District Collector, Sheopur, rather than taking recourse to the provisions of learned Rules, 2002, under which the said No Objection Certificate 235/2019-20/B-121 dated 24.2.2020 had been issued, chose, for reasons best known to him, to take recourse to the provision contained is section 50 of Chapter V of the Code, which was clearly without jurisdiction. This being the legal position, the action of District Collector,Sheopur in having initated the not seeking permission of the Commissioner, Chambal Division under section 50 of the Code for revision of the No Objection Certificate No. 235/2019-20/B-121 dated 24.2.2020, the action of the Commissioner, Chambal Dvision in having accorded his approval to the same as well as all actions subsequently taken at the level of District Collector, Sheopur in pursuance thereof, culminating in issuance of the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 by District Collector, Sheopur were clearly without jurisdiction. We accordingly hold all the above actions as wholly without jurisdiction. 4. We accordingly hold all the above actions as wholly without jurisdiction. 4. Now, coming to the question maintainability of this appeal, since we have already held that the No Objection Certificate No. 235/2019-20/B-121 dated 24.2.2020, not having been issued in exerise of any powers under the Code, is not an order and hence now recourse to the provisions of Chapter V of the Code relating to Appeal, Revision and Review is possible in matters relaing to it, we have no option but to hold this appeal, filed under the provisions of Chapter V of the Code, also to be without jurisdicion and therefore not maintainable. 5. In support of his case for maintainability of this appeal, Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even if it is accepted that the No Objection Certificate No. 235/2019-20/B-121 dated 24.2.2020, is not an order, as it does not fall within the definition of ''Order'' as contained in section 56 of the code, still since the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 of District Collector, Sheopur was issued in exercise of the powers contained in Section 50 forming part of Chapter V of the Code, this appeal preferred under the provisions of Chapter V of the Code was maintainable. We have given our serious consideration to the above contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant. It is no doubt true that the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020, of District Collector, Sheopur was issued in exerise of the powers contained in section 50 forming part of Chapter V of the Code, wholly without jurisdiction though, as already explained in preious paragraphs. Even if we assume, for argument sake, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the impugned order, having been issued under the provisions of the Code, no matter howsoever without jurisdiction, is still appelable under the provisions of the Code itself to be ture, we are afraid, this too doesn't help the case of the Learned Counsel for the appellant, because the said order, being an order issued in revision,is not an original order and hence, no appeal whatsoever, no matter whether before the Commissioner, Chambal Division or before the Board of Revenue lies against the said order even under the provisions of Chapter V of the Code. We therefore have no hesitation in holding that this appeal is not maintainable even under the provisions of Chapter V of the Code. As a matter of fact, for the very reason that the impugned order No.02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 of District Collector, Sheopur is an order issued in revision, a revision thereagainst, no matter whether before the Commissioner, Chambal Division of before the Board of Revenue, is also not maintainable, in the light of the provision containe in section 50)2)(c) of Chapter V of the Code, prohibiting entertainment of any application for revison against an order passed in revision. 6. Having already held that no appeal whatsoever lies against impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 of District Collector, Sheopur even under the provisions of Chapter V of the Code, the question as to whether the appeal ought to lie before the Commissionr, Chamble Dvision of before the Board of Revenue does not arise here in this case. Hence we do not propose to deide the hypothetical question as to whether the appeal ought o be before the Commisioner,Chambal Divisin or before the Board of Revenue, it such an appeal were at all to lie. We accordingly leave that question to be decided in a more appropriate case in future. 7. At this juncture, Learned Counsel for the appellant, after narrating in detail the various illegalities committed by the District Collector, Sheopur, while issuing the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020, stated that even though the Learned Administrative Member, in his detailed order No. Appeal 279/2020/Sheopur/L.R. dated 14.7.2020, had found all the appellant's allegations regarding illegalities committed by the District Collector, Sheopur, while issuing the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020, to be true, still no relief was granted to the appellant merely on a technical ground, causing thereby great injustice to the appelllant. He therefore urged that at least this time, technicalities should not be allowed to come in the way of dispensing justice to the appellant and if, this time too, for some technical reason, the present appea is still not found maintainable, in that event, it would be only in the fitness of things if resort is made to the powers of superintendence conferred upon Board of Revenue under section 8 of the Code, to set right the illegalities committed in the case and to provide justice to the appellant. We have given our serious consideration to this contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant too. It is indeed true that the Learned Administrative Member, in his detailed order No. Appeal 279/2020/SheopurL.R. dated 14.7.2020, had found serious illegalities in the process of issuance of the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 by the District Collector, Sheopur. Even the Gwalior Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in its order dated 23.8.2021 passed in the WP No. 10356/2020, had referred to some of his findings as under. ''The Board of Revenue has also coe to a conclusion that Collector should have sought permission to review and not revise. Further the Board of Revenue has come to a conclusion that the procedure adopted by the Commissioner in granting permission to revise was bad.'' 8. Not only that, having ourselves gone through the findings recorded by the Learned. Administrative Member in his detailed order No. Appeal 279/2020/Sheopur/L.R. dated 14.7.2020 as regards the serious illegalities committed in the process of issuance of the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 by the District Collector, Sheopur, we too tend to concur with them. However, notwithstanding the above findings of the Learned Administrative Member as regards the serious illegalities committed in the process of issuance of the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 by the District Collector, Sheopur, with which we also tend to concur, it is equally true that the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 by the District Collector, Sheopur, with which we also tend to concur, it is equally true that the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 of the District Collecor, Sheopur having been issued in a revision proceeding under the Code, no relief thereagainst is possible to be sought nor such a relief it possible to be given in an appeal proceeding (or for that matter, even a revision proceeding) under the provisions of the Code. We therefore see no reason to revision our finding record in previous paragraphs of this order, holding this appeal as not maintainable. 9. We therefore see no reason to revision our finding record in previous paragraphs of this order, holding this appeal as not maintainable. 9. We no propose to consider whether this is a fit case, wherein resort could be made to the powers of superientendence conferred upon Board of Revenue under section 8 of the Code, to set right the illegalities committed in the case and to provide justice to the appellant, as has been vehemently urged by the Learned Counsel for the appellant in his last ditch effort to salvage this case. But before proceeding further, it is apposite to refer to section 8 of the Code, dealing with powers of superintendence of the Board of Revenue, with reads as under: ''8 Powers of Superintendence of Board - The Board shall, in respect of all matters subject to its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, have superintendence over all authorities in so far as such authourities deal with such matters and may call for returns.'' 10. The scope of powers of Superintendence conferred on the Board of Revenue vide Section 8 of the Code as extracted above has been considered in a series of decisions of Board of Revenue. We would however like to refer, with profit, to the decision of the Board in Janhit Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Lal Bazar, Lashkar versus State of M.P. & others (1985 RN 218), wherein while analysing the scope of powers of superientendence conferred on the Boared of Revenue vide section 8 of the Code, Shri Manohar Keshav, the then Prisedent of Board of Revenue, held as follows: ''The powers of superintendence u/s 8 of the Code are somewhat analogous to Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Under the powers of superintendence, the Board of Revenue can exercise control over subordinate Courts not in on appellate capacity but in a supervisory capacity also. The control so exercised extends not only to seeing that the inferiour Courts keep within their jurisdiction but also to seeing that they observe the law. When a decision of any subordinate Court offends against the law, that order can be queashe in exercise of powers of superintendence ....'' 11. The control so exercised extends not only to seeing that the inferiour Courts keep within their jurisdiction but also to seeing that they observe the law. When a decision of any subordinate Court offends against the law, that order can be queashe in exercise of powers of superintendence ....'' 11. Now when we apply the ratio of the aforementioned decision of the Board as extrated above, with which we are in complete agreement, to the case at hand, we find that it applies on all fours to the case at hand, which would be clear from the discussion that follows in this paragraph. I may be worthwhile to note that we have already held that the action of District Collecor. Sheopur in having intiated the note seeking permission of the Commissioner, Chambal Division under section 50 of the Code for revision of the No Objection certificate No. 235/2019-20/B-121 dated 24.2.2020, the action of the Commissioner, Chambal Division in having accorded his approval to the same as well as all actions subsequently taken at the level of District Collector, Sheopur in pursuance thereof,culminating in issuance of the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 by District Collector, Sheopur were clearly without jurisdiction. It may also be worthwile to note that we have also already held that no appeal or revision whatsoever, no matter whether before the Commissioner, Chambal Division or before the Board of Revenue, lies against the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 issued by District Collector, Sheopur even under the provisions of Chapter V of the Code. The net result of the above is that even though, on the one hand we have already held that the impugned order No. 2/2020-21/ Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 issued by District Collector, Sheopur is wholly without jurisdiction, still, on the other hand, we have to contend with a situation, wherein we have to hold that the appellant, who is the party aggrieved by the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 issued by District Collector, Sheopur, is remediless against the said impugned order, simply because the nature of the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 issued by District Collector, Sheopur is such that the law does not permit the appellant to seek relief against it in an appeal (or for that matter, even a revision) proceeding under the provisions of Chapter V of the Code. We feel it would be a travelty of justice if we allow the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 of District Collector, Sheopur, which, tough purportedly issued in exercise of powers conformed under section 50 of the code, is in reality wholly withut jurisdiction as already held by us earlier, to continue to stand, despite availability of our powers of superintendence under section 8 of the code, which is intended, inter alia, for ''seeing that the inferiour Courts keep within their jurisdiction''. In our view, it is exactly to get over a situation like this that powers of superintendence under section 8 have been vested in the Board of Revenue, exercising which the Board of Revenue can intervene in its supervisiory capacity to keep the subordinate Courts within their jurisdiction. This being the legal position, we have no manner of doubt in holding that this is a fit case, wherein resort could be made to the powers of superintendence conferred upon Board of Revenue under section 8 of the code, to set right the illegalities committed in the case and to provide justice to the appellant. We therefore propose to treat this case as one under section 8 of the code and provide relief accordingly. 12. In the facts and circumtances of the case as stated in the previous paragraphs and in exercise of the powers conferred upon us under secton 8 of the code, we hereby set aside the impugned order No. 02/2020-21/Revision/6000 dated 2.7.2020 issued by District Collector, Sheopur, as the same is wholly without jurisdiction.