Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 752 (MP)

Naresh Kumar v. State of M. P.

2023-09-06

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

body2023
ORDER 1. The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by Member, Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revision No.2318- TWO/2012 whereby the order of Collector dated 28.6.2012 passed in suo motu revision No.09/2009-10 wherein the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Chanderi, District Guna dated 06.03.2001 in suo motu Revision No.24v-1/2000-01 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar for recording the land in dispute as a Government land in the revenue records and thereafter, correct the revenue entries in the khasra and alongwith Patwari report be forwarded to it. 2. Brief facts leading to controversry are that one application under SubSections (1) and (2) of section 57 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (''the Code'') was presented before the Respondent No.4-SDO by the present petitioners contending that land bearing Survey No.5/1 Min. admeasuring 4.000 hectares, out of 21.2 hectares, situated at village Lithora is in their continuous occupation since Samvat 2037 and on the basis of adverse possession, they have acquired bhumiswami rights and as on the notice issued by the State, they have deposited amount of penalty, therefore, they may be declared Bhumiswami. 3. The SDO vide order dated 6.8.2001 on the basis of alleged long uninterrupted possession of the petitioners, accorded the Bhumiswami rights. Prior to issuance of the aforesaid order, the statements of the Patwari were recorded and the report from the concerned Revenue Inspector was also called. Thereafter, the petitioners got the demarcation done of the said land. After approximately 09 years, the Respondent No.3- Collector taking the matter in suo motu revision issued show-cause notice to the petitioners and vide order dated 28.6.2012, the Collector passed the order and set aside the order passed by the SDO. Against the said order passed by the Collector dated 28.6.2012, the petitioners moved revision before the Board of Revenue which got dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.10.2013. Aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Gwalior and the Collector are against the settled principle of law, therefore, they are required to be set aside. Aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Gwalior and the Collector are against the settled principle of law, therefore, they are required to be set aside. It was further argued that taking of the matter in suo motu revision by the Collector is de-hors the principles of law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble apex Court in catena of its judgments, therefore, the impugned orders herein being perverse deserve to be set aside. 5. It was argued that after the amendment in section 57 of the Code if a dispute arises between a person and the State then the jurisdiction lay with the State Government and not with the Collector and therefore, the order passed by the Collector in suo motu revision was per se illegal. 6. In furtherance of his arguments, it was submitted that though the Collector in its order had mentioned the fact that the representation from the Additional Collector, Guna was received on 24.5.2003 but till 2010, no showcause notice was issued and there was no plausible explanation with regard to delay caused in issuance of the show-cause; thus, the suo motu revision suffers from delay and laches, therefore, the order passed by the Collector could not be sustained. 7. To bolster his submissions, reliance was placed in the matters of Ranveer Singh & Others v. State of M.P., reported in 2010 (3) JLJ 77 and Sharda Vihar Vikas Samiti v. State of M.P. & Others reported in 2012 RN 362 wherein the Full Bench and the Division Bench of this Court, while considering the period of limitation in exercising the suo motu revisional powers by the Court, had observed that maximum 180 days would be the upper-ceiling of limitation for exercising the aforesaid powers and as admittedly, the suo motu revisional powers have been exercised by the Collector after a period of more than 09 years (07 years from the date of representation dated 25.4.2003 submitted by the Additional Collector), the exercise of suo motu revisional powers were beyond the period of limitation, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 8. On the strength of the above arguments, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the orders impugned herein deserve to be set aside. 9. 8. On the strength of the above arguments, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the orders impugned herein deserve to be set aside. 9. On the contrary, while placing reliance in the matter of Ghurwa Ram & Others v. State of M.P., reported in 1985 RN 181, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that section 50 of the Code permits the Board to call for and examine the record of a case for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it and the powers so conferred on the Board are to examine whether the order passed by the Revenue Officer was legal and proper and its proceedings were in accordance with law or not and such powers can be exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. 10. It was further submitted that no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the Collector in passing the impugned order which was rightly upheld by the Member, Board of Revenue as the land in question was unlawfully entered by the then SDO and the patta thereof was also illegally allotted and when the said fact came to the notice of the Collector in suo motu revisional jurisdiction, the order passed by the SDO was upset and Tehsildar was directed to record the land in the name of the State Government which cannot be faulted with; thus, it was prayed that the present petition being devoid of any substance is required to be set aside. 11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. 11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The basic thrust of the counsel for the petitioner is that the powers of suo motu revision under section 50 of the Code exercised by the Collector since were beyond the period of limitation, the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the Full Bench of this Court as well as in catena of other judgments, it has been held that the maximum period of exercising the suo motu revisional powers is 180 days from the date of the knowledge of illegality committed and since the order has been passed after more than 09 years from the date of the order passed by the SDO (07 years from the date of representation received from the Additional Collector dated 25.4.2003), the order passed by the Collector dated 28.06.2012 as well as that of Member, Board of Revenue dated 21.10.2013 being per se illegal doesn't deserve to be sustained are liable to be set aside. 13. The Full Bench of this Court in paragraph 38 has held as under:- "38. Ab judicatio for the reasons stated hereinabove we hereby answer the question referred to us as under: "The suo motu powers can be exercised by the revisional authority authorit from the date of the knowledge of illegality, impropriety and of 180 day irregularity of the proceedings committed by any revenue officer subordinate to it even if the immovable property is Government land or having some public interest. What should be the irreparable loss, i should be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case as no definite yardstick in that regard can be drawn." 14. Thus, it is a settled proposition of law that suo motu powers can be exercised by the revisional authority envisaged under section 50 of the Code within a period of 180 days from the date of the knowledge of the illegality, impropriety and irregularity committed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to it even if the immovable property is a Government land or having some public interest declaring that starting point of the limitation would be the date of the knowledge of the illegality, impropriety or irregularity committed by any Revenue Officer. 15. 15. In wake of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, if the date of knowledge to the Collector which is said to have illegally exercised the suo motu revisional powers, is seen, in third paragraph of the order dated 28.6.2012 passed by it, a date has been mentioned on which the Additional Collector, Ashoknagar had sent a representation for taking the matter in suo motu revision; thus, it is evident that starting point of limitation would be the said date i.e. 25.4.2003. It was the date on which the Collector was having the knowledge of illegality or irregularity committed by the subordinate Revenue Officer but even thereafter, it was only on 25.8.2010 a show-cause notice was issued for the first time to the petitioners (Annexure P/9 appended to the petition), thus admittedly, the suo motu revisional proceedings were initiated after a lapse of 09 years from the date of the order passed by the SDO dated 6.3.2001 (otherwise also from the date of representation received from the Additional Collector dated 25.4.2003, the show-cause notice was issued after more than 7 years). Thus, the suo motu revision was admittedly beyond the period of 180 days from the date of knowledge as prescribed by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Ranveer Singh & Others v. State of M.P. (supra). 16. From bare perusal of the order passed by the Collector dated 28.6.2012, it could be seen that no reason has been assigned or no explanation has been extended for delay caused in exercising the said powers rather this fact has not been discussed at all by the Collector; thus, the said order being barred by limitation cannot be sustained. 17. So far as the order passed by the Board of Revenue is concerned, in paragraph 3 of the said order, it has been observed that from the date of information received from the SDO by the Collector, the suo-motu revision was within the period of limitation which appears to be totally incorrect in the light of the aforesaid discussion; thus, the said order is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. Accordingly, both the aforesaid orders i.e. order dated 28.6.2012 passed in suo motu revision No.09/2009-10 and the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by Member, Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revision No.2318-TWO/2012 are hereby set aside and the order passed by the SDO dated 6.3.2001 is hereby restored. 18. Accordingly, both the aforesaid orders i.e. order dated 28.6.2012 passed in suo motu revision No.09/2009-10 and the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by Member, Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revision No.2318-TWO/2012 are hereby set aside and the order passed by the SDO dated 6.3.2001 is hereby restored. 19. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is allowed and disposed of.