Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yaduvansh Prasad Mishra vs Dhruv Prasad Mishra on 17 January, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 17 th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 3676 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. YADUVANSH PRASAD MISHRA S/O LATE AWADH
PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O VILLAGE BAMHORI
TEHSIL HUZUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. LAVKUSH PRASAD MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI
RAGHUVANSH PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 29
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O VILLAGE
BAMHORI, TEHSIL HUZUR, (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRABHAT MISHRA S/O NOT MENTION R/O
VILLAGE BAMHORI, TEHSIL HUZUR, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. PRASHANT MISHRA S/O NOT MENTION, AGED
ABOUT 14 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE BAMHORI,
TEHSIL HUZUR, (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. REKHA MISHRA S/O NOT MENTION, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
VILLAGE BAMHORI, TEHSIL HUZUR, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHREYASH PANDIT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. DHRUV PRASAD MISHRA S/O LATE BHAGWAT
PRASAD MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O BAMHORI
TEHSIL HUZUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRADEEP MISHRA S/O LATE BHAGWAT PRASAD
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O BAMHORI,
TEHSIL HUZUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRAMOD MISHRA S/O LATE BHAGWAT PRASAD
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 1/20/2023
1:47:40 PM
2
MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O BAMHORI,
TEHSIL HUZUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. ADDITIOANAL COMMISSIONER REWA DISTT-
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. C O LLEC TO R R E W A DISTT-REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER TEHSIL AMARPATAN
DISTT-REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. NAIB TEHSILDAR CIRCLE BANKUIYAN TEHSIL
HUZUR, REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAMSUPHAL CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for the following reliefs:
"i. That the impugned order dated 24/01/019 (Annexure P/15) passed by the Additional Commissioner Rewa Division, Rewa (M.P.) be quashed.
ii. That the impugned order dated 23/10/2015 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Tehsil Huzur, District Rewa (M.P.) be quashed.
iii. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may kindly be granted."
2. The facts as reflect in the petition reveal that the petitioner No.1 is Bhumiswami of the land situated at Khasra No.377/3 Mauja Bamhori, Tehsil Huzur District Rewa. The respondent No.1 to 3 who are also relatives of the present petitioner moved an application under Section 115 /116 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and prayed that as there is incorrect entry in the Khasra, the same be corrected and their name be mutated in the land records. The said application was filed by the respondents on 31/07/2015 whereas a Patwari report was prepared on 30/07/2015 ie. a day before the date of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 1/20/2023 1:47:40 PM 3 submission of the application. Thereafter, in the order-sheet dated 22/09/2015 it was observed by the Naib Tahsildar that the present petitioner No.1 herein was dead and then an order was passed to bring Legal Representatives of petitioner No.1 on record. Thereafter, on 23/10/2015 it was observed in the order-sheet that as the respondents have refused to accept notice, ultimately, an order under Section 115 of MPLRC was passed by the Tahsildar on 23/10/2016 (Annexure P/3).
3. Assailing the order dated 23/10/2016 the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. The SDO vide order dated 15/01/2018 (Annexure P/8) allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The order passed by the SDO dated 15/01/2018 was assailed by the respondents herein by filing another appeal before the Additional Commissioner Division Rewa. The Additional Commissioner Division Rewa vide order dated 24/01/2019 allowed the appeal preferred by respondents and set aside the order passed by the SDO.
4. Assailing the order dated 23/10/2016 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Tahsildar and also order dated 24/01/2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Division Rewa, this petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the present case, the Tahsildar has passed an order after a lapse of more than 7 to 8 years and thus, in view of the provisions of Section 116 of MPLRC, no order pertaining to correction in revenue entries could have been made beyond the period of one year. It is further contended by the counsel that the petitioner No.1 who is alive, was treated as dead which is evident from the perusal of the order-sheet reduced into writing by the Tahsildar and thus, in misconceived notion, the order impugned was passed by the Tahsildar without extending any opportunity Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 1/20/2023 1:47:40 PM 4 of hearing to any of the petitioners. It is contended by the counsel that as their names were recorded in the property way back in the year 2007-08, there could not have been any correction in the revenue records without extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is also contended by the counsel that the entire proceedings were conducted in a suspicious manner inasmuch as the application for correction is moved by the respondents on 31/07/2015 whereas prior to that there was report by the Patwari on 30/07/2015. It is further contended by the counsel that a perusal of running order sheets which have been brought on record along with the petition as Annexure P/3 reflect that the Naib Tahsildar proceeded in a haste manner and ultimately passed the impugned order Annexure P/3. It is also contended by the counsel that these aspects were rightly taken note off by the SDO and then SDO passed a well reasoned and speaking order dated 15/01/2018 (Annexure P/8) and set aside the order impugned Annexure P/3 passed by the Naib Tahsildar. It is contended by the counsel that a well reasoned order passed by the SDO ought not to have been interfered by the Additional Commissioner Division Rewa in the second appeal. Thus, submits that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the present case the petitioners are making a futile attempt to take undue advantage of inadvertent error inasmuch as in the order-sheet dated 22/09/2015, it was incorrectly mentioned that Yaduvansh Prasad Mishra was dead whereas Raghuvansh Prasad Mishra was dead and application for bringing the Legal Representatives on record was moved which was also allowed vide the same order dated 22/09/2015. It is contended by the counsel that none of the petitioners accepted the notice and resultantly as there was refusal by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 1/20/2023 1:47:40 PM 5 present petitioners to accept the notice, thus, while rightly appreciating the records, the Tahsildar allowed the application preferred by the respondents under Section 115 of MPLRC and accordingly, corrected the revenue entries. It is also contended by the counsel that a perusal of the application filed under Section 115 of MPLRC (Annexure P/2) reflects that there was an endorsement dated 30/07/2013 and on the basis of which the report was submitted by the concerned Patwari and hence this contention of the petitioners that an ante- dated report was prepared by the Patwari is grossly misconceived. It is contended by the counsel for the respondents that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders impugned, they are at liberty to approach before competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. So far as the present petition is concerned, no interference is warranted.
7. Heard rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
8. In the present case, initially an application is moved by the respondents under Section 115 of MPLRC for correction in the records pertaining to mutation. The said application is on record contained in Annexure P/2. The order-sheets filed as Annexure P/4 reflects that the application was submitted by the respondents on 31/07/2015. A perusal of the further order-sheets reflects that the notices were issued to the respondents therein but there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the order-sheet dated 22/09/2015 reflects that the Authority observed that the respondent Yaduvansh Prasad Mishra is dead and hence his Legal Representatives be brought on record. Thereafter, an application was moved by the respondents herein under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC to bring LRs of Raghuvansh Mishra on record which was allowed and then the notices were issued to the Legal Representatives. Thereafter, the order dated 23/10/2015 reflects that the summons were issued to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 1/20/2023 1:47:40 PM 6 the non-applicants but they refused to accept the same and ultimately, Naib Tahsildar passed the impugned order dated 23/10/2015.
9. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that undisputedly the order has been passed in absence of present petitioners. It is nowhere mentioned in the order-sheet as to on which date the notices were served upon Yaduvansh Prasad Mishra and on which date the Legal Representatives of late Raghuvansh Prasad Mishra refused to accept the notice. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the order dated 23/10/2015 was passed by the Tahsildar in absence of the present petitioners. The said order of Tahsildar was set aside by the SDO. The SDO observed that the order impugned passed by Naib Tahsildar was contrary to the statutory provisions but instead of remitting back the matter, the SDO observed that the respondents herein are at liberty to take recourse to competent Court for declaration of title. The order passed by the SDO was assailed by the respondents herein by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal while setting aside the order of SDO in the present case. The following position emerges in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
1. Undisputedly, the order dated 23/10/2015 was passed by Naib Tahsildar in absence of the present petitioners.
2. There is mention of interlocutory order which reflects that the Naib Tahsildar observed that the petitioner No.1 Yaduvanah Peasad Mishra is dead, but, the said fact was incorrect.
3. Undisputendly, Raghuvansh Prasad Mishra was dead and an application was moved to bring Legal Representatives of record which was also allowed.
4. The application filed under Section 115 of MPLRC is required to be dealt Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 1/20/2023 1:47:40 PM 7 with in terms of the provisions of Section 116 of the MPLRC as stood there prior to the amendment in 2018.
10. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid Naib Tahsildar was first required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners. The Naib Tahsildar was also required to deal with the question pertaining to the exercise of powers after lapse of 1 year from recording of entry in revenue records. Undisputedly, the names of the present petitioners were recorded in revenue record in the year 2007-08 and the application under Section 115 of MPLRC was filed in the month of July, 2015 therefore, the application was moved after lapse of 7-8 years. There is no discussion by the Additional Commissioner, Division Rewa in his order dated 24/01/2019, as regards the provisions of Section 116 of MPLRC.
11. In the considered view of this Court, the order impugned dated 23/10/2015 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Naib Tahsildar and order dated 24/01/2019 (Annexure P/15) passed by the Additional Commissioner Division Rewa are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Naib Tahsildar, Division Rewa to decide the application filed by the respondents afresh while taking into consideration the rival stand of the parties while passing the well reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the petition stands allowed to the extend indicated hereinabove.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 1/20/2023 1:47:40 PM 8 JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 1/20/2023 1:47:40 PM