Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sitaram S/O Bhagatram vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 15 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)MPLJ178, 1999 A I H C 4031, (1999) 1 MPLJ 178
Author: Dipak Misra
Bench: Dipak Misra
ORDER Dipak Misra, J.
1. By this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 12-6-89 passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur in suo motu Revision No. 66/A-19/87-88 initiated under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').
2. Sans unnecessary details, the essential facts for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner, being a landless person, had applied to the Naib Tahsildar, Bilaspur, Respondent No. 3, for grant of 0.04 acre of land out of Khasra No. 1139/1 under the provisions of the Code. The Competent Authority, taking into consideration the provisions of the Code, read with M.P. Gramo Me Ki Dakhal Rahit Bhumi (Vishes Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1970, granted a Patta in favour of the petitioner. The said Patta has been brought on record as Annexure P/2.
3. After obtaining of the Patta, the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, constructed a house by spending a huge amount. While he was in the enjoyment of the said house, a notice to show cause was issued to him by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur indicating certain grounds why the Patta granted in his favour should not be cancelled. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause before the Competent Authority contending, inter alia, that there was no illegality in the grant of the Patta as provisions had been duly complied with at the time of grant. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had spent a huge amount in construction of the house where he was residing. It was pleaded that the petitioner had spent about Rs. 67,000/- in the said construction. The Additional Collector, after hearing the parties, vide Annexure-P-1, came to hold that there had been non-compliance of procedure in granting the Patta, and hence it was liable for cancellation and, accordingly he cancelled the order granting the Patta. The Additional Collector had also recorded a finding that the land in question was the 'Nistar' land and, therefore, the Patta could not have been granted in favour of the petitioner.
4. Shri R. P. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the aforesaid order, has contended that the exercise of suo motu power under Section 50 of the Code, almost after a decade, is unwarranted inasmuch as the petitioner was given the benefit of a Patta in respect of 0.04 acres of land as he was a landless person. It is also submitted by him that by virtue of long lapse of time, the petitioner has spent a substantial sum for construction of the house, and though such a plea was advanced before the Competent Authority who was exercising power under Section 50 of the Code, there has been no delineation in regard to the same. It is contended by Shri Agrawal that though there is no limitation for exercise of power under Section 50 of the Code, the same power has to be exercised within a reasonable time.
5. Shri Gupta, learned Government Advocate submitted that as there has been flagrant violation of the rules and the petitioner has taken undue advantage by getting the Patta in respect of Nistar land, the same should not be allowed to be sustained, and hence the order passed by the Additional Collector does not warrant interference. It is also submitted by Shri Gupta that the period of 10 years should be treated as reasonable in the present factual matrix.
6. In this context, I may refer to the decision rendered in case of Usha Dev and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1990 MPLJ 353, wherein this Court has held that there is no bar of limitation while exercising power under Section 50 of the Code but the same has to be exercised within a reasonable time. I may quote with profit the following observations of their Lordships :-
"We have, however, no hesitation in accepting the submission of Shri Bhargava that power of revision suo motu contemplated under Section 42 of the Act can be, and has to be, exercised within a reasonable time and that is the meaning to be attributed to the term "at any time" used therein. Counsel's reliance on State of Gujrat v. P. Raghav, AIR 1969 SC 1297, in support of that contention is indeed well-merited. There can be no dispute with that proposition because of the constitutional imperative requiring statutory authorities to act reasonably and not arbitrarily. However, what should be reasonable time for exercise of the power, as held in P. Raghav (supra), must be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised."
7. From the aforesaid, it is categorically clear that the suo motu power has to be exercised within a reasonable time and what would be reasonable time has to be determined in individual cases. Similar view was taken in case of Murarilal and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1994 MPLJ 378, I may hasten to add here that in the aforesaid case, their Lordships did not interfere with the order as jurisdiction was invoked after six years on the ground that the matter came to light before a short period of such invocation. Thus, the effect of the aforesaid decision is that exercise of power has to be done within a reasonable period. Shri Agrawal has also drawn my attention to the decision in the case of Mohd. Ravi v. Hatma Bai Ibrahim, 1998 (1) MPWN 37, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court dealing with Section 50 of the Code, held that suo motu power of revision has to be exercised within a reasonable time and while so holding, their Lordships opined that even one year may be unreasonable. I may quote with profit:-
"This Court in connection with other statutory provisions in the case of State of Gujrat v. Patil Raghavanatha, 1969 (2) SCC 187, and in the case of Ramchand v. Union of India, 1994 (1) SCC 44 has impressed that where no time limit has prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute. It does not mean that it can be exercised at any time: such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case of the present case, the suo motu power under Section 84-C of the Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time."
8-9. Now to the factual matrix of the present case. As alleged in the notice to show cause, this was a Nistar Land, but no complaint was registered by any person within a reasonable time. The petitioner had taken the specific plea before the Competent Authority, i.e. the Additional Collector, that he had already spent about Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- in the construction of the house. The plea of the petitioner has not been dealt with in appropriate manner by the Revisional Authority who has only proceeded on the assumption that there has been violation of rules. In absence of any period prescribed for limitation by the legislature, and in view of the settled position of law that jurisdiction has to be exercised within a reasonable time. I am of the view that the exercise of suo motu power was wholly unwarranted. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned order does not withstand close scrutiny and accordingly it is quashed.
10. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.