Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 638 (MP)

Harisingh Dhurvey v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

2024-09-27

MANINDER S.BHATTI

body2024
ORDER : (Maninder S. Bhatti, J.) This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.373/2024 dated 12.09.2024 registered at Police Station Vijaynagar District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 229, 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61, 198 BNS. 2. This is an application by the present applicant who is working as Tahsildar. It is contended by the counsel that an application for mutation came up before him which has been brought on record along with IA No.26052/2024 and upon receipt of the said application, the present applicant issued public notification which is at page no.9 dated 30.06.2023. The order-sheets were reduced in writing and after receiving the patwari prativedan, the order of mutation in favour of the applicant who has applied for mutation was passed. It is contended by the counsel that the application was moved by the applicant in the prescribed format and thus, there was illegality in the same. It is contended by the counsel that the order passed by the present applicant of mutation dated 08.08.2023 was assailed by one Shivcharan Pandey by filing an appeal under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before Sub Divisional Officer, Adhartal Jabalpur. The SDO, Adhartal, Jablapur passed an order dated 09.09.2024 and while passing the said order, the SDO, set aside the order passed by the present applicant dated 08.08.2023 and issued direction for mutation of Shiv Charan Panday. While passing the said order, the SDO observed that on the basis of the forged documents and while conducting ex-parte proceedings, the order has been passed, and therefore, the proposal was made to the Collector to take appropriate action against all accused persons. 3. It is contended by the counsel that pursuant to an order of SDO, the offence in question has been registered against the present applicant. It contended by the counsel that firstly there is no violation of any statutory provision as is being sought to be alleged by the prosecution. It is contended by the counsel that the present applicant passed the order in the capacity of the Tahsildar exercising quasi judicial powers, and therefore, was entitled for the Judges Protection Act. It contended by the counsel that firstly there is no violation of any statutory provision as is being sought to be alleged by the prosecution. It is contended by the counsel that the present applicant passed the order in the capacity of the Tahsildar exercising quasi judicial powers, and therefore, was entitled for the Judges Protection Act. It is contended by the counsel that there is a circular, which has been brought on record along with the application which is at page no.22, which stipulates that all the Revenue Officers, who exercise quasi judicial powers are protected under the Judges Protection Act and no action can be taken as regards in action which has been performed by them in performing of their official duties. 4. It is further contended by the counsel that the identical eventualities have been taken note of by this Court in number of decisions and in the case of Mahesh Kumar Badole vs. The State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.41607/2021), in identical circumstances, this Court quashed the proceedings which were instituted against the Revenue Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Direndra Singh vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.58759/2022), in the case of Mrs. Manorama Koshti Malkapurkar Wd/o Shri Arun Rao Malkapurakar vs. State of M.P. and Ors. (W.P. No.1901/2017) and in the case of Om Prakash vs. Surjan Singh (2004 1 MPJR 244). 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and submitted that in the present case, the present applicant while misusing his post passed an order dated 08.08.2023, in gross violation of the statutory provisions contained in M.P. Land Revenue Code and thereby without extending an opportunity of hearing to a person who was aged about 95 years and whose name was recorded previously in the revenue record, an order in favour of the other persons was passed. It is thus, contended by the counsel that the Sub Divisional Officer while taking note of this illegality passed the order and as a result of which, the offence in question has been registered. 7. Heard the submissions and perused the case diary. 8. It is thus, contended by the counsel that the Sub Divisional Officer while taking note of this illegality passed the order and as a result of which, the offence in question has been registered. 7. Heard the submissions and perused the case diary. 8. A perusal of the record reflects that this matter was heard previously on 25.09.2024 and after hearing the matter, this Court directed the counsel for applicant to bring on record a copy of application for mutation on the basis of which, the present applicant had passed the order dated 08.08.2023. The applicant along with IA No.26052/2024 has brought on record an application, which is at page no.8. The said application is reproduced herein: 9. A perusal of the said application makes it abundantly clear that the same does not contain any date and the name of the applicant, yet this application was taken cognizance of by the Tahsildar. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 110 (3) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, which is reproduced herein:- 110. Mutation of acquisition of right in land records. [Substituted by M.P. Act No. 23 of 2018] (1) The Patwari or Nagar Sarvekshak or person authorised under section 109 shall enter into a register prescribed for the purpose every acquisition of right reported to him under section 109 or which comes to his notice from any other source. (2) The Patwari or Nagar Sarvekshak or person authorised, as the case may be, shall intimate to the Tahsildar, all reports regarding acquisition of right received by him under sub-section (1) in such manner and in such Form as may be prescribed, within thirty days of the receipt thereof by him. (2) The Patwari or Nagar Sarvekshak or person authorised, as the case may be, shall intimate to the Tahsildar, all reports regarding acquisition of right received by him under sub-section (1) in such manner and in such Form as may be prescribed, within thirty days of the receipt thereof by him. (3) On receipt of intimation under section 109 or on receipt of intimation of such acquisition of right from any other source, the Tahsildar shall within fifteen days,- (a) register the case in his Court; (b) issue a notice to all persons interested and to such other persons and authorities as may be prescribed, in such Form and maimer as may be prescribed; and (c) display a notice relating to the proposed mutation on the notice board of his office, and publish it in the concerned village or sector in such manner as may be prescribed; (4) The Tahsildar shall, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the persons interested and after making such further enquiry as he may deem necessary, pass orders relating to mutation within thirty days of registration of case, in case of undisputed matter, and within five months, in case of disputed matter, and make necessary entry in the village khasra or sector khasra, as the case may be, and in other land records. (5) The Tahsildar shall supply a certified copy of the order passed under sub-section (4) and updated land records free of cost to the parties within thirty days, in the manner prescribed and only thereafter close the case : Provided that if the required copies are not supplied within the period specified, the Tahsildar shall record the reasons and report to the Sub-Divisional Officer. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 35, no case under this section shall be dismissed due to the absence of a party and shall be disposed of on merits. (7) All proceedings under this section shall be completed within two months in respect of undisputed case and within six months in respect of disputed case from the date of registration of the case. In case the proceedings are not disposed of within the specified period, the Tahsildar shall report the information of pending cases to the Collector in such Form and manner as may be prescribed. 10. In case the proceedings are not disposed of within the specified period, the Tahsildar shall report the information of pending cases to the Collector in such Form and manner as may be prescribed. 10. It is evident from perusal of Section 110 (3) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, that upon receipt of application, the Tahsildar is required to take action within 15 days by registering the case and issuing notices to all persons concerned. As in the present case, the application itself did not contain any date, therefore, the compliance of taking steps within a period of 15 days as per Section 110 (3) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, is not clear. Moreover, the application which was submitted without mentioning name of applicant and date was entertained by the present applicant. So far as, the reliance on the decision in the case of Mahesh Kumar Badole (supra) is concerned in paragraph 21 thereof, this Court clearly observed that the process in the concerned case were taken recourse to in accordance with law by the applicant therein. 11. However, in the present case, there is apparent gross violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 110 (3) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, and even the prescribed format which is being relied upon by the applicant is also different. The prescribed format which is being relied upon by the applicant also contains that apart from the other necessary details, the application should contain declaration. If the application moved by the applicant which is contained at page no.8 to IA No.26052/2024 is placed with juxtaposition with the prescribed format so produced during the course of hearing by the counsel for the applicant, it would reveal that the application was not submitted in accordance with the prescribed format, which is being relied upon by the applicant. 12. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that in the present case, the conduct of the present applicant is required to be investigated as apparently on the basis of undated application moved without mentioning the name of applicant therein, the order of mutation has been passed. 13. Accordingly, M.Cr.C. stands dismissed.