Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kallo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 November, 2019
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.26602/2018 & 2821, 534, 22, 15, 14, 12546, 8457 of 2019
Gwalior, Dated :20/11/2019
Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for petitioners (in all
petitions).
Shri P.S. Raghuvanshi, Government Advocate for
respondents/State (in all petitions).
By this common order W.P. No.26602/2018 (Mano Bai and others Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P. No.2821/2019 (Smt. Asha and another Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P. No.534/2019 (Shri Bablu and others Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P. No.22/2019 (Smt. Ganeshi and others Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P. No.15/2019 (Chhote Lal and others Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P. No.14/2019 (Ramcharan and others Vs. State of M.P. and others), W.P. No.12546/2019 (Dinesh Jatav Vs. State of M.P. and others) and W.P. No.8457/2019 (Smt. Kallo Vs. State of M.P. and others) are being decided.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ Petition No.26602/2018 (Mano Bai and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) shall be considered.
3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that Tahsildar by order dated 28/7/2003 granted lease of the Government land to the petitioners as well as to other similarly situated persons. In the month of August, 2011, a complaint was made to the Collector with regard to the irregularities committed 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.26602/2018 & 2821, 534, 22, 15, 14, 12546, 8457 of 2019 while grant of lease to the petitioners and some more similarly situated persons and accordingly, the SDO, Dabra by order dated 28/12/2011 directed the Naib Tahsildar, Circle Chhemak, Tahsil Dabra, District Gwalior to submit its report. The Naib Tahsildar submitted its report dated 5/11/2011 and submitted that the land in question was initially recorded as Charnoi land. On 7/7/2003 the then Tahsildar initiated proceedings on the basis of the list of Beehad Bhumi submitted by the Patwari and an advertisement was issued for inviting the applications for grant of Patta. On 28/7/2003, total 243 applications were received and on the very same day, Patta of Beehad Bhumi was granted to 101 persons. It was opined that the Patwari had not annexed the copy of the Khasra and the map alongwith the list, whereas it was necessary for him to annex the copy of Khasra Panchshala to ensure that the land in question is recorded as Beehad land and thus, the Tahsildar has ignored this important aspect and allotted the Pattas. It was further held that the notice of inviting applications was affixed on the board of the Gram Panchayat, however, the copy of the same was not sent to each of the Gram Panchayats and even the notice was not affixed on the board of the Court. As per the circular, the Beehad Bhumi having the depth upto 2 meter can be given on lease, however, in the lease deed there is no mention about the quality of the land and it is also not mentioned about the depth of Beehad Bhumi. It was also mentioned that as per 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.26602/2018 & 2821, 534, 22, 15, 14, 12546, 8457 of 2019 the circular, the Tahsildar should have prepared the list of eligible candidates and thereafter, should have forwarded the said list to the Public Estate Committee for their selection and in case if the approval is not received within a period of fifteen days, only then the Tahsildar could have allotted the land, but no such proceedings were undertaken. Furthermore, by way of premium 20% of the market price of land, assessed on the basis of sale deeds executed during the last three years should have been got deposited from the candidates of general category, but that was not done and it was also held that 54 beneficiaries out of 101 were having the land either in their name or in the name of their family members and accordingly, opined that the Pattas have been distributed de hors the provisions of law.
4. Accordingly, the SDO, Dabra sent a proposal to the Collector, Gwalior for taking the matter in suo moto revision.
5. On the basis of the recommendation made by the SDO, Dabra, the Collector, Gwalior took the matter in suo moto revision and issued show-cause notices to the beneficiaries. Replies were filed. In the meanwhile, one Nathuram Baghel, Mohan Baghel and Ramesh filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as party. The Collector by order dated 11/3/2013 directed to implead Nathuram as respondent no.2 against which beneficiaries filed a revision and the Board of Revenue set aside the order dated 11/3/2013. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated. The counsel for 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.26602/2018 & 2821, 534, 22, 15, 14, 12546, 8457 of 2019 the beneficiaries/petitioners appeared before the Collector and made a submission that on 17/7/2003 the Additional Collector, Datia had declared Charnoi land as Beehad Bhumi and accordingly, on 26/7/2003 the Patwari submitted the list of Beehad Bhumi. Accordingly, a notice was issued to Tahsildar for production of record. A statement was made by the Tahsildar, Dabra that the record is missing and in spite of intense search, the same could not be located and accordingly, on the basis of the list of Beehad Bhumi submitted by the Patwari as well as the argument of counsel, the case was heard by the Collector. It was submitted by the petitioners/beneficiaries that the objectors are not the resident of the locality. The petitioners belong to either OBC or Scheduled Caste and only Biharilal and Mohan belongs to the General Category and the list submitted by the Patwari should be treated as correct.
6. The Collector after considering the material which was available before him came to the conclusion that material illegality was committed by the Tahsildar by extending the benefit to ineligible persons and accordingly, the Pattas dated 28/7/2003 granted by the Tahsildar to the petitioners and similarly situated persons were cancelled and the Tahsildar was directed to correct the revenue records and make the entries which were existing prior to 28/7/2003.
7. Being aggrieved by the order of the Collector, the petitioners filed an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the Board of 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.26602/2018 & 2821, 534, 22, 15, 14, 12546, 8457 of 2019 Revenue by order dated 12/9/2018 passed in case No.2288- PBR/2016.
8. Challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Collector should not have cancelled the Patta because his own authorities had failed to produce the record and in case if the record is not available, then the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. Furthermore, it is submitted that merely because some of the beneficiaries are having some land, would not be material because still they were covered by the definition of landless persons and it cannot be said that the Patta was granted to ineligible persons. It is further submitted that once the petitioners have made the land fit for cultivation, then the unscrupulous persons started making allegations and the Patta was granted in the year 2003, whereas the suo moto action was taken by the Collector in the year 2011 and it is well established principle of law that the authorities must take the action within a reasonable time and, therefore, the suo moto proceedings initiated by the Collector was barred by time.
9. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the case was registered by the Tahsildar and by order dated 7/7/2003, he issued advertisement for allotment of Beehad land to the persons, whereas according to the statement made by the counsel for the petitioners themselves, the Additional Collector had converted 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.26602/2018 & 2821, 534, 22, 15, 14, 12546, 8457 of 2019 the Charnoi land as Beehad Bhumi by order dated 17/7/2003 and the list of Beehad Bhumi was presented by the Patwari on 26/7/2003. Thus, it is clear that on 7/7/2003 there was no material before the Tahsildar for issuing advertisement. Even on the said date, the land in question was recorded as Charnoi land and thus, it is clear that the entire exercise was done with a premeditated motive and on 28/7/2003 itself the Pattas were granted.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. It appears that on 7/7/2003 the Tahsildar issued a public advertisement for grant of Patta and fixed the case for 28/7/2003. Undisputedly, on 7/7/2003 the land in question was recorded as Charnoi land and the Additional Collector by order dated 17/7/2003 declared the Charnoi land as Beehad land and the Patwari submitted the list of Beehad land to the Tahsildar on 26/7/2003. The case was taken up by Tahsildar on 28/7/2003 and on the very same day, Pattas were granted to 101 persons. Thus, it is clear that on the day when the proceedings for allotment of Patta were initiated, no land was available, because Charnoi land cannot be allotted on Patta. It is really surprising that how the Tahsildar was aware on 7/7/2003 that the Charnoi land will be declared as Beehad Bhumi and even without any list of Beehad Bhumi before him, he issued public advertisement on 7/7/2003 for allotment of Patta and fixed the case for 28/7/2003. On 28/7/2003 itself the entire exercise was done by the Tahsildar and 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.26602/2018 & 2821, 534, 22, 15, 14, 12546, 8457 of 2019 the Pattas were granted to 101 persons. The respondents have filed the copy of the circular regulating award of Patta, which reads as under:-
**4& Hkwfe vkoaVu dh izfdz;k ¼1½ Js.kh ¼d½ esa vkus okys chgMksa dh Hkwfe ds vkcaVu dh izfd;k%& ¼d½ lacaf/kr rglhynkj vius {ks= essa vkxVau ;ksX; miyC/k chgM Hkwfe dk xzkeokj fooj.k rS;kj djk,xk blds i'pkr~ izk:i d esa vkcaVi ds fy, miyC/k Hkwfe dh lwpuk izdkf'kr dh tk,xh] ftls xzke esa lgt LFkkuksa ij pLik dj equknh djok nh tk,xhA lwpuk dh ,d izfr xzke iapk;r dks Hkh izsf"kr dh tk,xhA bPNqd O;fDr izk:i [k esa rglhynkj dks lwpuk tkjh gksus ds 15 fnu ds vanj izLrqr djsaxs rFkk rglhynkj fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k esa izkIr gksus okys vkosnu i=ksa dk ijh{k.k dj dafMdk 3 ¼1½ esa of.kZr dzekuqlkj vkosnuksa dh lwph rS;kj djsxk rFkk mls lacaf/kr xzkelHkk dh lkoZtfud laink lfefr dks izsf"kr djsxkA ¼[k½ xzke lHkk dh lkoZtfud laink lfefr lwph izkIr gksus ds 15 fnuksa ds vanj laHkkfor vkcafVfr;ksa dk p;u dj lwph rglhynkj dks HkstsxhA ijUrq ;fn xzke lHkj dh lkoZtfud laink lfefr 15 fnu esa vkosndksa dk p;u dj ,slh lwph rglhynkj dks ugha Hkstrh rks rglhynkj bu cuk, x, fu;eksa ds vk/kkj ij caVu djsxkA ¼x½ ,sls mi;qDr O;fDr;ksa dsk rglhynkj }kjk muds gLrk{kj ls izk:i x esa iVVs tkjh fd;s tkosaxsA iVVs tkjh djus ds i'pkr~ vkcafVrh dk ;fn Hkwfe ij iwoZ ls dCtk ugha gS rks rglhynkj ,sls vkcaafVrh dks cafVr Hkwfe dk dCtk fnyok,xk rFkk bl gsrq izk:i x esa dCtk okjaV tkjh fd;k tk,xkA ¼2½ chgM Hkwfe dk uhykeh }kjk vkcaVu dh izfdz;k%& Js.kh ¼d½ dh 'ks"k cph ,oa Js.kh ¼[k½ dh chgM Hkwfe dk vkcaVu [kqyh uhykeh }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA uhykeh dh izfdz;k fuEukuqlkj gksxh%& ¼d½ rglhynkj loZizFke mi;qZDr dafMdk 3 ,oa 4¼1½ ds v/khu Hkwfe dk vkcaVu djus ds mijkUr cph 'ks"k Hkwfe dk foLrkj ls losZ{k.k djsxkA ¼[k½ losZ{k.k i'pkr~ ,slh cph Hkwfe dks fpfUgr dj U;wure nks ehVj rd ds xgjs chgM Hkwfe 2 gSDVs;j ¼5 ,dM½ ds rFkk nks ehVj ls ikap ehVj rd ds xgjs chgM Hkwfe ds 10 gSDVs;j ¼25 ,dM½ ds IykV ¼pd½ dk fu/kkZj.k djsxk rFkk ;kstukc} rjhds ls mldh fooj.k if=dk rS;kj djsxkA ¼x½ ,slh rS;kj foojf.kdk esa rglhynkj mu pdksa dks fuf'pr pd dzekad nsxk vkSj ,sls cuk, pdksa ds vkus&tkus ds jkLrs@ty fudklh vkfn O;oLFkkvksa dk Li"V avadu djsxkA
8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.26602/2018 & 2821, 534, 22, 15, 14, 12546, 8457 of 2019 bl izdkj gjsd xkao dh fuf'pr dk;Z ;kstuk dk vuqeksnu vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ ls izkIr djsxkA ¼?k½ ;kstukc} rS;kj fd;s x;s pdksa dh uhykeh esa Hkkx ysus dh ik=rk ,oa izkFkfedrk ;FkkfLFkfr Åij mYysf[kr dafMdk 3¼2½ ,oa dafMdk 3¼3½ds vuqlkj jgsxhA ¼M½ ,slk dksbZ O;fDr uhyke esa Hkkx ysus dk gdnkj ugha gksxk ftlds ikl uhyke dh tkus okyh Hkwfe dk {ks=Qy feykdj e/;izns'k d`"kd thr mPpre lhek vf/kfu;e] 1960 ds v/khu fu/kkZfjr mPpre lhek ls vf/kd Hkwfe gksA ¼p½ vkosnudrkZ izkf/kdkjh izk:i M esa uhykeh dh ,d ? kks"k.kk tkjh djsxk tks uhykeh ds de ls de 30 fnu igys xzke ls lacaf/kr xzke iapk;r esa lgt LFkkuksa ij rFkk rglhy o tuin eq[;ky; esa lwpuk Qyd ij pLik dh tk,xhA uhykeh ds fy, fu;r dh xbZ frfFk dh vkcaVu vf/kdkjh fu;r LFkku ij Hkwfe dh uhykeh djsxk rFkk 'kkklu ds fgr esa mfpr ewY; dk lek/kku gksus ij ml vf/kdre cksyh ds vk/kkj Lohd`r djsxkA ¼N½ uhykeh lekIr gksus ij ;k rks Lohd`r cksyh dh iwjh jkf'k ;k de ls de 10 izfr'kr jde rqjUr tek djuh gksxhA tgka iwjh jde rqjUr tek dh tk, ogka vkcaVu vf/kdkjh fu/kkZfjr izk:i x esa iVVk tkjh djsxk vkSj uhykeh dh xbZ Hkwfe dk dCtk Hkh fnyk,xkA cksyh dh iwjh jkf'k tek ugha djus ij 'ks"k Hkwfe uhykeh dh rkjh[k ls 30 fnol ds Hkhrj tek dh tk ldsxhA iwjh jkf'k tek gks tkus ij vkcaVu vf/kdkjh izk:i x esa lacaf/kr dks iVVk tkjh dj uhyke dh xbZ Hkwfe dk dCtk fnyk,xkA ¼t½ ;fn fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k ds vanj 'ks"k jkf'k tek ugha dh tkrh gS rks uhykeh dh cksyh ds le; tek 10 izfr'kr jkf'k cxSj dkj.k crk, gq, jktlkr dj yh tk,xh vkSj ,slh Hkwfe bl izdkj ls iqu% uhyke dh tk,xh tSls fd igys dHkh uhyke ugha dh gksA bl dafMdk ds v/khu nh xbZ Hkwfe ds lacaf/kr fu/kkZfjr iwjh Hkw&jktLo caVu dh rkjh[k ds ckn ds jktLo o"kZ ls fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks nsuk gksxkA**
12. In the present case, by order dated 7/7/2003 the Tahsildar fixed the case for 28/7/2003 and on the very same day, Pattas were granted to 101 persons, which clearly indicates that the procedure meant for allotment of Beehad land was never followed.
13. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioners that in the month of August, 2011, some unscrupulous persons had made a complaint to the Collector and the 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.26602/2018 & 2821, 534, 22, 15, 14, 12546, 8457 of 2019 Collector in its turn had directed the SDO, Dabra to get an equiry done and accordingly, the enquiry report was submitted by the Tahsildar, Dabra, District Gwalior. It is submitted that since there is a delay in initiating the proceedings of suo moto revision, therefore, the order of the Collector is bad.
14. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
15. It is not the case of the petitioner that immediately after the allotment of the Patta, any complaint was made to the Collector or the Collector was aware of the illegal activities of the Tahsildar. According to the petitioners themselves, in the month of August, 2011 a complaint was made by some unscrupulous persons and accordingly, the power of suo moto revision was exercised by the Collector in the month of December, 2011. Thus, it is clear that when the complaint was made with regard to the illegal grant of Patta, then immediately the Collector directed the SDO, Dabra, District Gwalior to hold a preliminary enquiry into the allegations and after receiving the enquiry report dated 15/11/2011 from the Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Dabra, District Gwalior, on 3/12/2011 a recommendation was made by the SDO, Dabra to the Collector for taking up the matter on suo moto revision. Accordingly, without any delay, the power of suo moto was exercised. Thus, it is clear that the Collector has quickly responded to the complaint of illegal allotment of Patta and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the 10 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.26602/2018 & 2821, 534, 22, 15, 14, 12546, 8457 of 2019 Collector.
16. It appears that the Charnoi land was declared as Beehad Bhumi and within few days, the Patta of the said Charnoi land was granted. The Naib Tahsildar in its report dated 15/11/2011 has also held that the depth of the Beehad Bhumi has also not been considered by the Tahsildar while granting Patta. Therefore, it is clear that in fact Patta was granted of Charnoi land, which is not permissible.
17. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Collector and Board of Revenue did not commit any mistake by passing an order dated 17/5/2016 in case No.01/12-13/suo moto revision and order dated 12/9/2018 in case No.2288-PBR/2016 respectively and have rightly cancelled the Pattas, which were granted to the petitioners on 28/7/2003.
18. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Arun* Judge
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2019.11.23 16:05:25 +05'30'