Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010

                                 -( 1 )-                  W.P.No. 2019/2002

     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
                   Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2002


                    Kailash Kumar Khandelwal
                                 Versus
                Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior
                           and others

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ravish Agrawal, senior counsel with Shri Abhishek
Singh, for petitioner.

Shri Ravendra Shukla, counsel for respondents No. 5 & 7.

Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, counsel for respondents No. 8 to 35.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESENT :             Hon'ble Shri R.S. Jha, J.

                              ORDER

(18-11-2010) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12-2-2002 passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior in Revision No. 1691-Ek/2001, setting aside the order dated 29-8-2001, passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, in Appeal No. 236/Rev/2000-2001, arising out of orders dated 4-4-2001 and 25-4-2001 passed by the Collector. Satna, in Case No. 33-A-19/Suo Motu Revision/94-96,.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that one Smt. Sona Bai, widow of Shri Sarju Sharan was granted a permanent lease of a total area of 41.82 acres comprising of Aaraji Nos. 214, 215, 256, 257, 258, 288, 290 and 292 by a deed, dated 19-4-1949. The -(2)- W.P.No. 2019/2002 said Smt. Sona Bai executed a lease deed in favour of one Arjun Das, father of the petitioner, in respect of Khasra No. 292, area 5.40 acres ( This Khasra Number was subsequently changed to 292/1 ). Subsequently, some time in the year 1982 after death of Smt. Sona Bai her three daughters executed about 23 sale deeds in respect of the aforementioned 5.40 acres in the name of various persons whose names were ultimately recorded by the Superintendent, Land Records in the year 1986 in the revenue records. A report in respect of the aforesaid recording of names was made to the Collector, Satna who, therefore, took up suo motu proceedings under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') and by interim order dated 30-5-1995 ordered that the names recorded by the Patwari be deleted and the name of the State be recorded as the owner of the aforesaid land and that all further transactions in respect of the land in question be kept in abeyance.

3. The aforesaid order passed by the Collector, Satna, was assailed by Smt. Kundan Devi and others by filing a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.No. 2253/1995 and this Court, by order dated 23-10-1997 quashed the aforesaid order on the short ground that before passing any order, the Collector had failed to give any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the affected persons and the matter was remanded back to the Collector with a direction to decide the same after giving due and effective opportunity to the petitioners to contest the case. It was further directed by -( 3 )- W.P.No. 2019/2002 this Court that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Collector status quo in respect of the revenue record and possession of the land shall be maintained. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the Collector, Satna, on 4-6-1998 issued notices to the concerned persons, including the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner had filed his objections to the effect that the petitioner being the permanent lease holder of the land in question, no sale deeds in favour of the purchasers could have been executed by the original Pattedar, Smt. Sona Bai.

4. After hearing all the parties the Collector, Satna by order dated 4-4-2001 held that consequent upon the death of Smt. Sona Bai her daughters have acquired the status as Bhumiswamis except in respect of Khasra No. 257 and 215 which were tanks and therefore vested in the State under the provisions of Section 251 of the Code. The Collector further ordered that the petitioner being the permanent leasee of Khasra No. 292/1, area 5.40 acres, no alienation in respect of that land or part thereof could be made by Smt. Sona Bai or by her successors in favour of any other person and, therefore, mutation made by the Superintendent, Land Records was quashed and the situation prevailing prior to the sale deed i.e. as on 20-8-1982 was restored. Subsequently, the Collector by order dated 25-4-2001 corrected the clerical error in his previous order dated 4-4-2001 and instead of Khasra No. 292/2, area 5.40 acres mentioned Khasra No. 292/1, area 5.40 acres.

5. The order of the Collector was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Rewa by order dated 28-9-2001. The aforesaid orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner were assailed by the respondent Abhishek Jain and 25 others by filing a Revision Case No. 1691- Ek/2001 which has been allowed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior by the impugned order 12-2-2002 and while quashing the orders passed by the Collector, Satna dated 4-4-2001 and 25-4-2001 and the order passed by the Commissioner, Rewa, dated 29-8-2001, the orders of mutation dated 21-4-2006 and the consequent order passed by the Patwari, dated 26-4-1986 have been restored. Additionally, it has been ordered that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of 3.40 acres of land of Khasra No. 292/1 which is in possession of the petitioner.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior the petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the Board of Revenue has erred in exercising the powers vested in it and has travelled beyond its powers inasmuch as the Board of Revenue after clearly recording a finding that the Revenue Courts had no power to initiate suo motu proceedings after a long time and as there was no impugned order against which suo motu proceedings were taken up by the authorities, the entire proceedings should have been quashed by it instead of upholding the orders passed by the Superintendent, Land Records, directing maintenance of status quo in respect of Khasra No. 292/1, area 3.40 acres.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the Board of Revenue has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by entering into the question of title or the question of succession and acquisition of the status of Bhumi Swami of the legal representatives who were the daughters of Smt. Sona Bai. The petitioner further contended that the Board of Revenue on recording a finding that the petitioner had been granted permanent lease in respect of 5.40 acres of Khasra No. 292/1 could not have directed maintenance of status quo in respect of 3.40 acres of land which was part of the aforesaid lease, specifically as the validity or otherwise of the lease granted in favour of the petitioner or the fact as to whether the petitioner had lost any rights under the lease on account of non-payment of rent etc. were not the subject- matter in the proceedings before any of the authorities. The petitioner has also stated that the Board of Revenue in fact should have determined the petitioner's status keeping in mind the provisions of Rewa Land Revenue and Tenancy Code, 1935 repealed by the M.P.Land Revenue and Rewa Tenancy Act, 1959 which was further repealed by M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959. In view of the aforesaid, it is stated that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue be quashed.

8. The respondents, per contra, submit that the Board of Revenue has rightly examined the issue from all the facts and facets and set aside the orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner and rightly directed maintenance of status quo in respect of 3.40 acres of land which has been leased out to the petitioner on permanent basis -(6)- W.P.No. 2019/2002 taking into account the fact that the petitioner has not deposited the lease rent periodically.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.

10. From a perusal of the order passed by the Collector, dated 4-4-2001, specifically, paragraph 7 thereof it is clear that the Collector has recorded a finding to the effect that it is not clear as to how and in what manner the matter was initiated and taken up for suo motu revision and that there is no order on record against which suo motu proceedings could be taken up. There is also a finding to the effect that even in the show cause notice issued to the parties there is no mention of any order against which suo motu proceedings have been taken up which is a necessary requirement under the provisions of Section 50 of the Code. In spite of the aforesaid aspect, the Collector has gone on to decide the revision proceedings. The aforesaid aspect has again been reiterated and reaffirmed by the Board of Revenue in paragraph 16 of the impugned order dated 12-2-2002. It is evident from a perusal of paragraph 17 of the impugned order that the Board of Revenue has recorded a finding to the effect that suo motu proceedings in respect of the matter were highly belated and no reason or valid basis was available on record to initiate the same. It is also clear that the Board of Revenue in spite of recording the aforesaid findings has gone on to quash the order dated 4-4-2001 and 25-4-2001 passed by the Collector, Satna and the order dated 29-8-2001 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa and to restore the order passed by -( 7 )- W.P.No. 2019/2002 the Superintendent, Land Records, dated 21-4-1986 and has further gone on to direct maintenance of status quo in respect of vacant land, area 3.40 acres of Survey No. 291/1.

11. From a perusal of the provisions of the Code it is clear that the authorities can take up proceedings for suo motu revision against any order passed by the subordinate authorities, however, in the instant case the Collector as well as the Board of Revenue have recorded a finding that the suo motu proceedings initiated in the present case were not against any order or proceeding and that the exact cause of action leading to initiation of proceedings was not evident nor had the parties been informed as to the specific order against which the proceedings had been initiated. It is also clear from reading of paragraph 9 of the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue that the Board has gone into the question of title and authority of the original Pattedar, Smt. Sona Bai and her daughters to execute the sale deeds and has also examined the rights of the petitioners as a lessee although both of the aforesaid issues were not subject-matter of the revision proceedings initiated by the Collector or in dispute before the Board of Revenue. In fact, the Board of Revenue itself, in paragraph 13, has clearly observed that if there was any dispute inter se between the parties regarding cancellation of lease or possession of the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 292/1, area 5.40 acres, the said dispute should be resolved by the parties by resorting to appropriate proceedings i.e. filing of a civil suit.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the Board of Revenue has travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in it and has exercised its powers illegally while deciding the aforesaid issues which have to be left open to be decided by a competent Court in appropriate proceedings initiated by either of the parties. I am also of the considered opinion that as the status of the petitioner or the validity of the lease executed in favour of the petitioner were not subject-matter of the suo motu proceedings, the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner to that extent also deserve to be and are hereby set aside and the order of the Board of Revenue to that extent is upheld. While doing so, it is made clear that the entire issue regarding right and title of the original owners, the validity of the lease deeds or the permanent lease in favour of the petitioner as well as continuation of the petitioner's right even subsequent to the execution of the sale deeds are all kept open and to be decided by a competent Court, in case, any appropriate proceedings in that respect are taken up by either of the parties, if so advised.

13. With the aforesaid observations and to the extent indicated above, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

(R.S.Jha) Judge mct