Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Kumar Gautam vs The State Of M.P. & Anr. Judgement Given ... on 27 August, 2013
1
W.P. No. 6231/01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 6231 of 2001
SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA
Petitioners : 1. Virendra Kumar Gautam
S/o late Shri Ramanuj Gautam,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
2. Vinod Kumar,
S/o late Shri Ramanuj Gautam,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
3. Smt. Rajwati (Dead) through LRs:-
(i) Rajendra Prasad Pandey,
S/o Late Devendra Kumar Pandey,
R/o Dwari, Tahsil Curh, District
Rewa
(ii) Rakesh Kumar Pandey,
S/o Rajendra Prasad Pandey,
R/o Dwari, Tahsil Curh, District
Rewa
(iii) Vivek Kumar Pandey,
S/o Rajendra Prasad Pandey,
R/o Dwari, Tahsil Curh, District
Rewa
(iv) Smt. Sangita
D/o Rajendra Prasad Pandey,
R/o Dwari, Tahsil Curh, District
Rewa
(v) Smt. Anita
D/o Rajendra Prasad Pandey,
R/o Dwari, Tahsil Curh, District
Rewa
2
W.P. No. 6231/01
4. Smt. Munni Devi
daughter of late Shri Ramanuj
Gautam, R/o Village Barehi, Post
Office Raipur Karchulian, Police
Station and Tahsil Raipur
Karchulian, District Rewa, M.P.
5. Smt. Ramkali,
Wd/o late Raman Gautam,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
6. Neelesh Kumar,
son of late Ram Lakhan
alias Har Sharan Prasad,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
7. Smt. Shankhawati
widow of late Ram Lakhan
alias Har Sharan Prasad,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
8. Smt. Shakuntala,
daughter of late Ram Lakhan
alias Har Sharan Prasad,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
9. Smt. Savitri,
daughter of late Ram Lakhan
alias Har Sharan Prasad,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
10. Smt. Shashikala,
widow of late Mool Chand Tripathi,
3
W.P. No. 6231/01
daughter of late Ram Lakhan
alias Har Sharan Prasad,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
11. Smt. Sulochini,
daughter of late Ram Lakhan
alias Har Sharan Prasad,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
12. Smt. Savita
daughter of late Ram Lakhan
alias Har Sharan Prasad,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
Versus
Respondents : 1 State of Madhya Pradesh
through Collector, Rewa, M.P.
2. Devendra Kumar Gautam,
son of Ramakant,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
3. Smt. Rukminia,
wife of Shri Lakshmi Kant
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
4. Smt. Krishnawati,
widow of late Uma Shankar,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
4
W.P. No. 6231/01
5. Smt. Bhagyawati,
wife of Pradyumna Prasad,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
6. Ram Vishal,
son of late Ram Narayan,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
7. Ramakant,
son of late Keshava Prasad
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
8. Motilal,
son of late Dulare Kumhar,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
9. Chandrika Prasad,
son of Shri Keshari Nandan,
R/o Village Barehi, Post Office
Raipur Karchulian, Police Station
and Tahsil Raipur Karchulian,
District Rewa, M.P.
10. Board of Revenue,
Gwalior, M.P.
11. Commissioner,
Rewa Division, Rewa, M.P.
12. Assistant Superintendent of Land
Records, Rewa, M.P.
13. Revenue Inspector, Circle Raipur
Karchulian, District Rewa, M.P.
5
W.P. No. 6231/01
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners by - Shri Vibhudhendra Mishra and shri
Mahendra Saraf, Advocates
Respondents No.2 to 6 - Shri J.L. Mishra, Advocate.
and 8 & 9
Other respondents - None, though served.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(27/08/2013) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners are seeking following reliefs:-
(i) Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and quash the impugned order dated 29.10.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh.
(ii) Any other relief to which in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners be found entitled to, may also kindly be granted."
2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that on consent basis the mutation orders were passed by the Revenue Inspector on 29.3.1979, 20.10.1979, 7.12.1980, 24.6.1981, 15.11.1981 and 8.2.1984. Thereafter an application was submitted by the present petitioners on 28.4.1998, Annexure A/8 inviting the attention of Commissioner, Rewa that when the order of mutation was made by the Revenue Inspector they were minors since their father passed away on 30.5.1970 and the 6 W.P. No. 6231/01 widow mother was an illiterate lady. Further in the application it is averred that without executing any document of sale or any instrument conveying the property, such order of mutation on consent basis could not be passed by the Revenue Inspector, hence it was prayed that the matter may be taken up in suo motu and by exercising suo motu revisional powers the aforesaid orders of mutation passed by Revenue Inspector may be set aside.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, show cause notices Annexure A/10 to A/16 were issued by the Commissioner on 25.9.1998 to the respondents 2 to 9 as to why by exercising powers under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the Code), the mutation order based upon consent basis be not set aside.
4. On receiving the show causes notices, the respondents 2 to 9 submitted their preliminary objections that the suo motu power cannot be exercised after long lapse of decades together in between 16 to 20 years and, therefore, the show cause notices be dismissed. The matter was heard by the learned Commissioner and ultimately he found that the mutation order which was passed on consent basis was unwarranted under the law and set aside the same. The order of learned Commissioner dated 04.06.1999 was assailed by the respondents 2 to 9 before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior who on 7 W.P. No. 6231/01 29.10.2001 set aside the order of Commissioner. Hence, this petition has been filed.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that learned Commissioner assigned several reasons in holding that different orders of the Revenue Inspector passed from the year 1979 to 1984 on consent basis should be set aside. But by somersaulting all the cogent reasons assigned by the Revisional Authority, the Board of Revenue in a very cryptic and arbitrary manner without assigning reasons and meeting out the grounds on the basis of which the Commissioner passed the order, has allowed the revision of respondents no.2 to 9 and hence it has been prayed that this petition be allowed. Learned counsel by placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court Ranveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. 2010(4) M.P.L.J. 178 has submitted that within 180 days from the date of knowledge the Revisional Authority has exercised the power of suo motu revision and, therefore, it cannot be said that its order is bad in law. Hence, it has been prayed that this petition be allowed.
6. On the other hand, Shri J.L. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 and 8 & 9 argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that suo motu power of revision which was exercised in between 14 to 16 years cannot be exercised and, therefore, the impugned order which has been 8 W.P. No. 6231/01 passed by the Board of Revenue has been rightly passed and, therefore, this petition be dismissed.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.
8. On bare perusal of the impugned order of Commissioner dated 04.06.1999 Annexure A/19, it is gathered that inter alia the main point which was emphasized is that without any document of transfer and conveyance on the basis of consent order, the mutation order was passed by the Revenue Inspector which cannot be allowed to remain stand. According to me, very cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Commissioner in that regard. I may further add that until and unless the land in question is transferred and conveyed by executing a proper document by the owner, the other party would not become the owner or Bhumi-swami and if that is the position, according to me, without meeting the reasons assigned by learned Commissioner, setting aside the consent mutation order passed by the Commissioner, the Board of Revenue in a cryptic and arbitrary manner has allowed the revision application.
9. On bare perusal of the order of the Board of Revenue, it reveals that in para 5, the arguments of the respondents were narrated. Thereafter in para 6, the arguments of the learned Government Advocate are narrated. In paras 7 and 8, the arguments advanced by the respondents before the Board of 9 W.P. No. 6231/01 Revenue who are petitioners herein, were written and thereafter in para 9, in a very summary and arbitrary manner the order of the learned Commissioner has been set aside without meeting out the grounds of exercising suo motu revisional power by the Commissioner. In these facts and circumstances, normally the case should be remanded but looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances that this petition is pending for the last more than 12 years, therefore, I am declining to remand the case.
10. There is nothing on record in order to hold that on the basis of any valid conveyance deed in favour of respondents 2 to 9, the consent order of mutation was passed by the Revenue Inspector during the period 1979 to 1984. Had it been so, certainly the petitioners would not have any case, but, since there is no such document on record, according to me, the Revenue Inspector without any jurisdiction has passed the order of mutation in favour of respondents. If such type of practice is accepted, it would mean that anybody may come forward by saying he is the Bhumiswami and by accepting his contention on consent basis if the other party will give its consent, the former party would become Bhumiswami and his name will be mutated in the revenue record. According to me, it is not permissible.
11. In the present case, on bare perusal of the application Annexure A/8 of the petitioners dated 28.4.1998 it is gathered that the illegality came into the knowledge of the Revisional 10 W.P. No. 6231/01 Authority (Commissioner) that the Revenue Inspector has illegally mutated the names of respondents as Bhumiswami and eventually within a span of six months, on 25.9.1998 he issued show cause notices Annexure A/10 to A/16 to the respondents 2 to 9 and thus the notices have been issued within six months as held by the Full Bench decision Ranveer Singh (supra) para 36. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order of the Board of Revenue Annexure A/20 dated 29.10.2001 cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby quashed and the order passed by the Commissioner, Annexure A/19 dated 4.6.1999 is hereby affirmed. However, the respondents shall be free to file civil suit for a declaration that they are the Bhumiswami of the suit property. If such a suit is filed, the same may be decided on its own merits.
12. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed. No costs.
(A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao 11 W.P. No. 6231/01