Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anurag Mishra vs Virendra Kumar Sharma @ Guddu on 21 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 3076/2011 &W.P. No. 3077/2011
W.P. No. 3076/2011
(Anurag Mishra Vs. Rajkumar @ Raju Sharma)
W.P. No. 3077/2011
(Anurag Mishra Vs. Virendra Kumar Sharma)
Gwalior Bench:
Dated:21/02/2018
Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Som Nath Seth, learned counsel for respondent.
With consent, heard finally.
This order would Govern the fate of W.P. No.3077/2011 also. Both the petitions have heard
analogously and decided by common order. For brevity and clarity purpose facts of W.P. No. 3076/2011 are taken into consideration.
The present petition is being preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 11.03.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Court of Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, (M.P.), whereby, the revision preferred by the respondent has been allowed and order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Collector, District-Bhind is hereby set aside.
Precisely stated facts of the case are that ancestors of the petitioner namely Thakurdeen was maufidar of the temple Vankhandeshwar Mahadev. In the year 1860 (Samvat 1917) erstwhile Ruler of the State, enhanced the amount of Rs. 100/- in the maufi already granted to Shri Thakurdeen vide Annexure P/2. After death of Shri Thakurdeen, his successor took his place and line of succession continued up to the petitioner. Various documents are placed in this regard. It appears that one of his successors Shri Gopal Krishna Mishra succeeded in THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3076/2011 &W.P. No. 3077/2011 1977 and till his death in 2001, continued worshiping in the temple. Since, the respondent was also taking part in taking care and seva pooja of Deity/temple on behalf of Gopal Krishna Mishra, therefore, taking benefit of this liberty respondent without knowledge of late Shri Gopal Krishna Mishra managed and get an order dated 11.01.1995 regarding appointment of Pujari vide Annexure P/7. Petitioner did not have the knowledge of the said order as this order have taken allegedly in a suspicious manner. After the knowledge of this event, petitioner applied for certified copy and thereafter, preferred the first appeal before the Collector, District Bhind along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. It appears that the Collector proceeded with the appeal and record was called. Despite several reminders, when record was not called, then Collector passed an order dated 20.12.2010 reprimanding the lower staff of Sub Divisional Officer, with some pungent remarks about the fate of case. This, gave a chance to the respondent to prefer a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena with prayer for direction to the Collector to pass order in accordance with law. After remanding the matter, Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena passed the impugned order, therefore, the petitioner appeared before this Court.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Collector, District Bhind has passed the order, in which when he found that record is not coming, therefore, he got legitimate apprehension that whole case as doubtful THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3076/2011 &W.P. No. 3077/2011 and therefore, he issued notices and directed for initiation of fresh proceedings to be made by the SDM for appointment of Pujari . In the said order, Collector anticipated the fact that record was not coming, therefore, matter became doubtful, therefore in the interest of justice, the order has been passed. The said aspect has not been considered by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Gwalior and passed order in detail and virtually taken over the jurisdiction of appeal. It is further submitted that the appointment order of Pujari appears to be based on no evidence and no enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer at the relevant point of time and therefore, in all likelihood no record is available regarding enquiry when respondent was appointed as Pujari. Therefore, Collector passed the order which was not prejudicial to the respondent even. Still revision was preferred and the revisional order suggest jurisdictional error.
Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that revisional Court has rightly passed the impugned order and the case involves no interference. According to him, the petitioner is trying to challenge the order at a belated stage after fifteen years and therefore, the Revisional Court has rightly passed the impugned order.
Heard, the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended with the petition.
The matter pertains to appointment of Pujari. Annexure P/2 is the Genealogy table of petitioner, in which grants by the erstwhile Ruler is mentioned. Certain THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3076/2011 &W.P. No. 3077/2011 other documents also suggest that petitioner's ancestors were at the helm as Pujari in Vankhandeshwar Temple. By the order dated 11.01.1995 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhind, respondent was appointed pujari of the said temple, which is being challenged by the petitioner before the Collector, District Bhind along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. When the record was not produced from the Office of Sub Divisional Officer, Bhind, then Collector was compelled to pass order with strict tenor and texture, in which it is also mentioned that if record does not come, then police report be made in this regard. From the order of Collector, it appears that Office of SDO does not possess the record of the case and here the whole suspicion comes, therefore, the Collector, Dist. Bhind rightly expressed his anguish for initiation of fresh proceedings for appointment of Pujari. The said order specifically takes care of interest of all the parties because it no where says that respondent is not eligible, it only says the fresh process be initiated. If respondent is conscious about his service and missionary zeal towards the temple and deity then this would not have been his cup of tea to challenge it before the revisional Court.
Interestingly, his revision memo (Annexure P/11) reveals that he only prayed for remanding the matter with a direction to the Court of Collector to proceed as per law, but Revisional authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Revisional THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 3076/2011 &W.P. No. 3077/2011 authority had no occasion to appreciate the case when the appeal was pending and when prayer in revision was not made at all for the same. Scope of Appeal and Revision are always different, but said distinction was obliterated in the present order of revision. Therefore, the Revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction and caused jurisdictional error. Prima facie , it appears that endeavor of the Revisional authority was not on objective considerations.
Therefore, this order dated 11.03.2011 cannot be allowed to sustain, resultently, the same is hereby set aside and order of Collector dated 20.12.2010 is revived. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, District Bhind to start from where the thread was left. The Collector, District Bhind, may conduct the enquiry, if required, in the appeal and pass appropriate order as per law. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector, District Bhind on 12.03.2018 and take necessary guidance from his office for further hearing.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
(Anand Pathak) Judge LJ* Digitally signed by LOKENDRA JAIN Date: 2018.03.05 10:32:29 +05'30'