Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Bharosi Sharma vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 3 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)MPHT205
Author: Rajendra Menon
Bench: Rajendra Menon
ORDER Rajendra Menon, J.
1. The petitioner who was owner of certain land in Survey No. 3056/30, Village Gohad, moved an application for exchange of his land with land bearing Survey No. 911. The reason for making such an application was sentimental values attached to the said land by the petitioner, because his father was cremated in the said land. The petitioner moved an application before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior who vide Annexure P-6 dated 17-12-1990 directed the petitioner to make proper application before the Collector, Bhind. Accordingly the application was made and Collector directed SDO to conduct enquiry and submit his report, accordingly, the report was submitted by the SDO and on the basis of the same vide order dated 2-9-1991 Annexure P-3 exchange of land was permitted subject to the condition that petitioner deposits difference of value, accordingly, an amount of Rs. 12,500.00 was deposited by the petitioner on 26-10-1992 and the land in question was entered in the name of the petitioner, since then petitioner is in possession of the said land.
2. After a lapse of 7 years vide Annexure P-1 a show cause in exercise of power of suo motu revision under Section 50 of the M.F. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Gwalior, petitioner submitted his objection and thereafter filed the instant petition for quashing suo motu revision initiated by the respondent-Commissioner.
3. The State has filed its return and it is averred in the said return that petition is not maintainable as the same is only against the show-cause notice and the petitioner should be directed to file his reply to the show-cause notice and he has a right to challenge the final order that may be passed by the Commissioner. It is further submitted that there were complaints to the effect that Collector in the case transferred the temple land accordingly letter Annexure R-4 dated 27-7-1998 was issued to the Commissioner directing him to exercise his power suo motu revision in the matter.
4. Shri Vivek Jain for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar Singh and Ors v. Randheera and Ors., 1994 Revenue Nirnaya 392 and in the case of Pratap Singh and Anr v. State of M.P., 1997 Revenue Nirnaya 219 and judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, AIR 1997 SC 71, has submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present petition the powers of suo motu revision could not be exercised. It is pointed out that in fact this is a revision on the basis of certain complaints and cannot be termed as and suo motu revision accordingly it is submitted by him that as per provision of Section 50 Sub-section 1 (II) the application has to be presented within a period of 30 days and as the said period is over Commissioner cannot proceed with the matter. Even otherwise placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment it is submitted by him that suo motu revision after a period of 7 years is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the aforementioned cases.
5. Per contra Shri K.N. Gupta, Govt. Advocate and Shri N.K. Gupta, for intervenor have submitted that as there was serious complains with regard to transfer of the land belonging the temple the action of the respondents is proper and no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record I am not inclined to reject this petition on the ground that it is against the show-cause notice this Court after hearing Counsel for the parties on 5-8-1999 has admitted the petition, interim order was also passed. In view of this I am not inclined to reject the petition at this stage.
7. The question that requires determination is as to whether the Commissioner was entitled to proceed in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Section 50 gives power to review any order passed by the Collector or settlement officer on his own motion or an application filed within a period of 30 days. In the instant case admittedly the orders were passed by the Collector in the year 1991 no action was taken for a period of 7 years it seems that action was initiated by the Commissioner only because State Government so directed vide Annexure R-4 dated 27-7-98, A perusal of Annexure R-4 also indicates that it has been done in view of some proceedings in the legislative assembly.
8. That being so there is some force in the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner it cannot be said that Commissioner has exercised suo motu powers. He was directed to make some enquiry. The question of limitation was considered by this Court when powers of revision were exercised by the Commissioner, in the case of Sardar Singh (supra) and after considering the provision of Section 50 it has been held that the suo motu powers of revision cannot be exercised after a lapse of a period of 7 years, placing reliance of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujrat v. Patel Raghav Natha, AIR 1969 SC 1297, this Court in the said case has held that power cannot be exercised after a lapse of 7 years powers has to be exercised within a reasonable time. The aforesaid legal position is further confirmed by this Court in the case of Pratap Singh and Ors v. State of M.P., (supra), wherein again considering the powers of suo motu revision under Section 50 placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujrat (supra) it has been held that the powers of suo motu revision when not exercised within a reasonable time, the right which has accrued to a person cannot be withdrawn after such a belated stage. The Supreme Court also while considering power of suo motu revision in the matters of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1976 in the case of Mohamad Kavi (supra), held that when no time limit is prescribed under the statute it should be exercised within a reasonable limit. Considering the legal position in the light of the aforesaid judgment there cannot be any doubt that in the instant case also exercise of the powers of revision has been done after a lapse of 7 years, accordingly, the proceedings cannot be permitted to continue the show-cause notice issued, proceedings instituted by the respondents vide Annexure P-1 are unsustainable under the law in view of the well settled legal principle.
9. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondents that temple land is being transferred contrary to law and therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioner, even though sounds attractive cannot be accepted because, this is not a case of giving land to the petitioner, it is a case where land of the petitioner has been taken by Government in exchange and difference of value has also been realised. Before permitting the exchange the Competent Authority of the State had conducted an enquiry and only after following the procedure prescribed under the law the exchange was ordered, by an authority who was empowered to do so under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code. Under these circumstances a presumption has to be drawn that every thing was done in accordance with law. That apart no objection or representation was made by anyone for a period of 7 years and during this period certain rights vested in nature had been created in favour of the petitioner. The Commissioner who also exercises the power of the competent authority for muafi land did not find any irregularity in the exchange for 7 years on the contrary as is evident from Annexure P-6 it is this authority to whom the petitioner made a request at the initial stage for exchange of land and on his direction only the application was moved before the Collector. If there was any irregularity or illegality the said authority would have intervened in the matter. On action in the part of the authorities who are seized of the matter only indicates that there was no irregularity in the change permitted by the Collector.
10. In the back drop of the above and in view of the well settled legal position with regard to the limitation/time limit within which the power of review under Section 50 the M.P. Land Revenue Code has to be exercised. I am of the considered view that the petition has to be allowed and the proceedings of suo motu revision under Section 50 initiated vide Annexure P-1 dated 10-11-98 cannot be sustained.
11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, the show-cause notice dated 10-11-98 Annexure P-1 is hereby quashed and consequence the proceedings under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code initiated against the petitioner are also set aside.
Parties to bear their own cost.