Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khursheed Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084
1 W.P. No.17777/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 17777 of 2011
KHURSHEED ALI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Harpreet Singh Ruprah - Additional Advocate General with Shri
Anubhav Jain, Government Advocate for respondent no.1/State.
Shri Nikhil Tiwari - Advocate for respondent no.2.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 12-10-2011 passed by Collector, Bhopal by which the preliminary objection raised by Petitioner with regard to maintainability of suo motu exercise of power of Revision against the order dated 14-6-2010 by which Nazul No Objection was issued to the Petitioner has been rejected.
2. It has been conceded by Counsel for Petitioner as well as State that Undisputedly there is no declaration by any Court of Law that father of Petitioner was given the land in dispute by Oral Hiba by Nawab of Obedulla.
3. Challenging the impugned order passed by Collector, Bhopal, it is submitted by Counsel for Petitioner that in the year 1934, the land in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 2 W.P. No.17777/2011 dispute was gifted by the then Nawab of Obedulla to the father of the petitioner by Oral Hiba. In the year 1950, the said property was rented out by father of petitioner to one Lal Mohammad. Father of Petitioner passed away on 30-12-1985 and thereafter, a fresh rent agreement was entered into between Petitioner and Lal Mohammad. In the year 2005, Petitioner filed a civil suit for eviction of Shadab, Basharat, Aslam and Rahees in respect of plot No.21 and 23 situated behind Alpana Talkies, which is part of Kh. Nos. 674 and 675 total area 19,595 Sq. Ft. The suit was decreed by Judgment and Decree dated 24-1-2007 passed by First Civil Judge Class 2, Bhopal in C.S. No.157A/2005 and a decree for eviction was passed against the aforementioned defendants. It is the case of Petitioner, that appeals filed by tenants were dismissed.
4. The Petitioner moved an application for mutation of his name on 20- 2-2008. However, the said application was dismissed by the then Naib Tahsildar, City Circle, Huzur, Distt. Bhopal by order dated 20-4-2009 (It is made clear that the Tahsildar who rejected the application was not Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh). Against the order dated 20-4-2009, Petitioner, preferred an appeal before S.D.O. During the Pendency of appeal, Petitioner preferred a suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction claiming that State Authorities should not interfere with peaceful possession of Petitioner. The suit was filed on 4-4-2009 and by order dated 18-11-2009, temporary injunction was granted in favor of petitioner. Since, the State Authorities were interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner, therefore, a complaint was made by Petitioner to Principal Secretary. Add. Secretary, G.A.D., by its letter dated 4-12-2009 directed the Commissioner and Collector, Bhopal to take prompt action in relation to the grievance of the Petitioner. By order dated 25-1-2010, the appeal filed by Petitioner against the order dated 20-4-2009 passed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 3 W.P. No.17777/2011 Naib- Tahsildar, was allowed by S.D.O. and matter was remanded back on four issues. It appears that on the basis of eviction decree, it was also observed by S.D.O., that the land in question is not a Govt. land but it is a private land. Thereafter, by report dated 31-5-2010, Naib Tahsildar namely Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, sent a recommendation to S.D.O., that the land in dispute be recorded in the name of Petitioner, however, it was also observed that mutation may be done after the Civil Suit filed by Petitioner is disposed of. The S.D.O. by order dated 31-5-2010 accepted the recommendation of Naib Tahsildar Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh and observed that mutation shall be carried out after withdrawal or disposal of civil suit.
5. It is not out of place to mention here that all these proceedings regarding mutation were going on during the pendency of the Civil Suit filed by Petitioner for declaration of title and Mandatory Injunction. But one thing is clear that as soon as Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, joined as Naib Tahsildar, City Circle, Huzur, Distt. Bhopal, the things started moving in favor of Petitioner.
6. It is submitted that in the meanwhile in the month of January, 2010, the Petitioner had also filed an application for grant of No Objection Certificate by Nazul Department. A report from the Tahsildar, through N.M.S. was obtained. At that time also, Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh was posted as Naib Tahsildar. Accordingly, NMS submitted his report to Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh which was approved by Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh and forwarded a recommendation that No Objection can be issued by Nazul Department, accordingly, Nazul NOC was granted to the Petitioner on 14-6-2010, which was also placed by Petitioner in the pending Civil Suit.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 4 W.P. No.17777/2011
7. It appears that thereafter, on 21-7-2010 an application for compromise was filed in the pending Civil Suit, and Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, appeared on behalf of the State Govt. and agreed that a compromise decree, thereby acknowledging that Petitioner is in lawful possession, may be passed and accordingly, a compromise decree was passed on 4-8-2010.
8. It appears that a complaint was made on 17-8-2010 in Jan Sunwai Portal. On 9-9-2010, building permission was granted and on 19-11-2010, mining officer also granted permission and accordingly, the petitioner started construction activities. It is submitted that the complaint filed by the third party claiming that the land in question is a Govt. Land was rejected by S.D.O. by order dated 17-2-2011. Again certain local leaders started creating nuisance in the construction activities, and accordingly, on 17-8-2011, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner in exercise of suo motu power under Section 50 of MPLR Code, thereby, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why Nazul No-Objection Certificate granted to the Petitioner on 14-6-2010 be not cancelled. It appears that the Petitioner filed an objection with regard to maintainability of proceedings under Section 50 of MPLR Code, which have been dismissed by Collector, Bhopal by impugned order dated 12-10-2011.
9. Challenging the impugned order dated 12-10-2011, it is submitted by Counsel for Petitioner that in an eviction suit, a decree for eviction was granted in favor of Petitioner. The land in dispute was given to the father of Petitioner by Oral Hiba by the then Nawab of Obedulla. Furthermore, in a suit for declaration of title and Mandatory Injunction, a compromise decree was passed in which the State Govt. had acknowledged that the Petitioner is in Lawful possession of the suit property. Furthermore, the S.D.O. had also directed for mutation of name of Petitioner after the disposal of suit. Therefore, the authorities did not commit any mistake by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 5 W.P. No.17777/2011 granting Nazul No-Objection, thus, suo-motu exercise of power of revision by the Collector Bhopal is bad in law and should have allowed the objections filed by the Petitioner and should have dismissed the proceedings. It is further submitted that the suo-motu exercise of power on 17-8-2011 by Collector, Bhopal is bad in law because it is hit by Judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 178.
10. Per contra, the Petition is vehemently opposed by Counsel for State. It is submitted that neither Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh who was the OIC, nor the Govt. Advocate were empowered to enter into a compromise. It is submitted that for entering into a compromise, an approval from State Govt. was required but Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, entered into a compromise without any approval by the State Govt. To buttress this contention, the Counsel for the State relied upon Clause 200 of Law Manual. It was further claimed that the Petitioner has not challenged the detailed order passed by Collector, Bhopal on 12-10-2011. Furthermore, the impugned order is interim in nature and even otherwise, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of approaching the Commissioner.
11. On 18-4-2024, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order :
Let the record of First Appeal No.334 of 2013 be placed before this Court for consideration.
State counsel is directed to file an affidavit of the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue to the effect that despite liberty being granted in First Appeal No.334 of 2013 to the State Government to prefer a civil suit and to seek the relevant relief as claimed for and despite lapse of almost a decade no such civil suit is being preferred till date. A specific question is being put to the State counsel that as to whether any civil suit is being filed, on information (letter dated 18.04.2024) received from the authority, he fairly submits that an OIC has been appointed for Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 6 W.P. No.17777/2011 filing civil suit, but no date is mentioned that on which date OIC is appointed to deal with the proceeding to file a civil suit. Let an affidavit of the Principal Secretary of the Department be filed to clarify the position who are all the OICs who have dealt with the present matter since 2011 till date. He further directed to clarify that once there is a ground taken by the State authorities that the concerning Naib Tahsildar Bajrang Bahadur was not competent to enter into compromise in the matter, despite of the same in the civil suit No.153-A/2009 has entered into a compromise and the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2010 was passed, what action has been taken by the State authorities against the said Naib Tahsildar. Let the aforesaid be placed on record under the signatures of the Principal Secretary of the Department by the next date of hearing. 15 days' time is granted to do the needful failing which the Principal Secretary of the Department has to mark his presence before this Court to explain the circumstances. List the matter on 10.05.2024.
Copy of this order be send to Principal Secretary, Revenue for necessary compliance.
12. Since, the affidavits filed by respondents were not satisfactory and were vague, therefore, this Court passed the following order on 16-7-2024 :
Counsel for State prays for and is granted a day's time to submit following informations :-
(i) What action has been taken by the Principal Secretary (Revenue) against the OICs, whose name have figured in the list of OICs, which has been filed as Annexure A/3 along with I.A.No.205/2024 and if no action has been taken then the Principal Secretary (Revenue) shall also explain as to why he has given clean chit to the OICs who are/were responsible for sitting over the matter.
(ii) The Principal Secretary (Revenue) shall also give the details of the action, which he has taken against the erring Naib Tahsildar who according to the respondent was not authorized to enter into a compromise.
List on 18.07.2024.
It is made clear that any lethargic attitude shown by the Principal Secretary (Revenue) shall be treated as silent approval of misdeeds of the Revenue Authorities.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 7 W.P. No.17777/2011
13. On 18-7-2024, the following order was passed :-
It is submitted by Shri Ruprah that it was the present Principal Secretary (Revenue), who had unearthed the present discrepancy while he was posted as Collector Bhopal. Show cause notices were issued to the OICs in the month April 2024 but later on as the present Principal Secretary(Revenue) was out of country, therefore, the same could not be pursued with all seriousness and undertakes to pursue the matter seriously without any further delay and prays for two weeks' time to do the needful. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the State, a last opportunity of two weeks is granted to file a report with regard to action taken by the Principal Secretary (Revenue), against the erring OICs and others, who according to him were responsible for the entire scam.
As prayed, list this case on 05.08.2024.
14. On 5-8-2024, the matter was heard at length but because the Counsel for the State was not in a position to answer certain queries raised by this Court, therefore, following order was passed :-
The matter was argued at length.
2. It appears that in a civil suit, Naib Tahsildar without any authority entered into a compromise thereby accepting the title of the petitioner.
3. On 3.11.2011 a show cause notice was issued by the then Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal to Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib Tahsildar, Nazul City, Bhopal thereby mentioning that he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner without approval by the State and accordingly, he was called upon to explain as to why action may not be taken against him under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, but thereafter, it appears that show cause notice dated 3.11.2011 never saw the light of the day. However that was not the end of the misdeeds of the State authorities.
4. On 17.8.2011 Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava, the then Collector, Bhopal issued the impugned show cause notice to the petitioner thereby mentioning as to why the power of suo- moto revision against the mutation order, by which, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records, be not exercised.Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 8 W.P. No.17777/2011
5. Thus, Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava, the then Collector was aware of the fact that the Naib Tahsildar had entered into a compromise illegally but in spite of that, no action was taken by Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava to challenge the decree.
6. It appears that thereafter First Appeal No. 334/2013 was filed by the State against the judgment and decree which was passed on the basis of the compromise and the said first appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court by judgment dated 28.4.2014, by which liberty was granted to the State to file a civil suit for challenging the said decree.
7. Thereafter, nothing was done by the State to take any action to challenge the decree either by filing an application on the ground that the decree was obtained by playing fraud or by any legally permissible method because Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC bars fresh suit on the ground that the compromise, on which, decree is based, was not proper.
8. It is really shocking that although the property of the State was being mishandled by the various revenue authorities but still the officers were never interested in correcting their house and Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava who was aware of the misdeeds of his Naib Tahsildar also, did not take any step to challenge the decree.
9. Be that whatever it may be.
10. The most unfortunate part is that the State authorities woke up only when they were called upon to do so by this Court.
11. On 18.4.2024 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following orders :-
* * * *
12. On 10.5.2024 following orders were passed :-
* * * *
13. On 16.7.2024 following orders were passed :-
* * * *
14. On 18.7.2024 following orders were passed
* * * *
15. Two affidavits i.e. IA No.205/2024 and I.A. No.222/2024 have been filed.
16. It is really surprising that these affidavits have been filed by the same person who by issuing the impugned show cause notice was aware that misdeeds have been done by his Naib Tahsildar, but conveniently did not challenge the decree.
17. Be that whatever it may be.
18.Today when certain questions were being put to the Counsel Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 9 W.P. No.17777/2011 for the State in the light of the affidavits as well as action taken report which has been filed as I.A. No.11063/2024, it was once again prayed by Shri Anubhav Jain that further time may be granted to seek instructions.
19. Thus, it is clear that the respondents are still not serious in correcting their house and they are still out and out to protect their officers and only when specific questions are asked by this Court, then they are half heartedly taking action against their officers.
20. As already pointed out, on 3.11.2011 a show cause notice was issued by the then Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal to Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib Tahsildar but thereafter, the file never saw the light of the day. Nothing has been said by the respondents in their affidavit or in their compliance report about the steps taken by them to fix the liability of the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal as well as the persons who were responsible for assuring that no action is taken on show cause notice dated 3.11.2011. Even role of Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava is not very encouraging because even after coming to know that fraud has been played by Bajrang Bahadur Singh, Naib Tahsildar as he had illegally and without authority entered into a compromise thereby accepting the title and possession of the petitioner, but did not propose any departmental action against Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib Tahsildar or for taking any action for challenging the decree.
21. It is true that FA No.334/2013 was filed to challenge the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.153-A/09 decided by 5thDistrict Judge, Bhopal on 4.8.2010, but it is not known as to whether the said first appeal was filed at the instance of Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava or was at the instance of some other officer. Even the record pertaining to grant of sanction for filing first appeal by the Law Department has not been placed on record.
22. Under these circumstances, where the State has failed to show its seriousness in dealing with the matter, no further opportunities can be granted to answer the questions which are arising on the basis of the pleadings / documents filed along with affidavit dated 9.5.2024 and affidavit dated 17.5.2024 sworn by Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava, Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Madhya Pradesh as well as compliance report filed along with an affidavit of Shri N. K. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 10 W.P. No.17777/2011 Khare, SDM, City Bhopal, District Bhopal. Even the name of the then Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Bhopal who sat over the show cause notice dated 3.11.2011 has not been disclosed.
23. Be that whatever it may be.
24. Under these circumstances, this Court is left with no other option but to issue notice to Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava, Former Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue to file his personal response pointing out the steps which were taken by him before or after issuing impugned show cause notice dated 17.8.2011.
25. Also issue notice to Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib Tahsildar to explain that under whose instructions, he had entered into a compromise and also to show cause as to why he may not be directed to pay the mesne profit @ Rs.20,000/- per month to the State of M.P. from the date of compromise till final disposal of this case.
26. The notices to Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava and Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh shall be served through Chief Secretary, State of M.P.
27. The respondent no.1 is also directed to produce the record of show cause notice dated 3.11.2011 issued by Commissioner, Revenue Division, Bhopal and also the record by which sanction was granted to file First Appeal. The State is also directed to file the record pertaining to posting of Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh from the date of compromise till today.
28. Let the reply be filed on or before 26.8.2024.29.
29. List on 30.8.2024.
15. On 20-9-24, following order was passed :
It is submitted by Shri Tiwari that the compromise was done by Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib Tahsildar, Nazul City Bhopal under the written instructions of the then SDO. To buttress his contention, Bajrang Bahadur Singh has filed his reply along with an application for supply of documents under Right to Information Act. By relying on reply dated 30.07.2024, which has been filed as Annexure Document -C, it is submitted by counsel for Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh that the relevant documents were destroyed in the year 2020, therefore, the then Naib Tahsildar, Nazul City Bhopal is not in a position to substantiate his contention that the compromise was arrived at only after obtaining written permission from the then SDO.
2. In reply, it is submitted by Shri Ruprah that in fact in the year Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 11 W.P. No.17777/2011 2011,the then Commissioner, Bhopal had issued a show cause notice to Bajrang Bahadur Singh on the basis of information given by the then Collector, Bhopal to show cause as to how he entered into a compromise without any authority.
3. Thus, it is clear that the State Authorities were aware of the fact that matter is under dispute and still if the record has been destroyed in the year 2020, then it is a matter of great concern and shows the involvement of multiple Government officials.
4. Faced with such a situation, Shri Ruprah prays for a week's time to address this Court as to whether the file of case No.71/Nazul/B-
121/2009-10,which was destroyed in the year 2020 has any relevance to the dispute in question or not?
5. Time granted.
6. If it is found that the aforesaid file was relevant to resolve this dispute, then Shri Ruprah will also point out the names of those officers, who were instrumental to the destruction of the file specifically when the dispute was already in the knowledge of senior officers and they had already taken cognizance of the same.
7. List this case on 03.10.2024.
16. Accordingly, yesterday, another reply was filed by the State authorities to the query raised by the Court, which shall be considered at a later stage.
Conduct of Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib Tahsildar in entering into compromise in Civil Suit No. 153A/2009.
17. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate for this Court to consider the stand taken by Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh. Initially, it was submitted by Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate, that Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh had entered into a compromise on the basis of written instructions given by the then S.D.O, but claimed that since the relevant file has been destroyed, therefore, he could not obtain the copy of those written instructions. When this Court took serious note of destruction of file during the pendency of the litigation, then the State Authorities took a somersault and submitted that photocopy of the file has been traced out and accordingly, two files were placed before this Court in sealed cover.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 12 W.P. No.17777/2011 Accordingly, both the sealed envelops were opened in the open Court, and Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate, was requested to go through the files, and to point out as to whether any written instructions were given by the then S.D.O.
18. After going through the record, it is fairly conceded by Counsel for Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, that there were no written instructions by the then S.D.O. to Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, to enter into compromise. However, he tried to develop his arguments that Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh had entered into a compromise on the oral instructions of the then S.D.O.
19. However, the said defence taken by Counsel for Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh was specifically denied by Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Additional Advocate General, and submitted that even in his statement which was recorded in C.S. No.153A/2009 Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh had not claimed that he has been authorised either by S.D.O. or by State Govt. Thus, it is the specific stand of the State Govt. that Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, entered into a compromise, without any authority.
20. Faced, with this situation, it is submitted by Shri Nikhil Tiwari Advocate, that in fact the action of Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh in entering into compromise was a bonafide action. By referring to the proceedings for grant of Nazul No-Objection, which was registered on the application filed by the Petitioner, it is submitted, that S.D.O. Nazul had directed the Tahsildar to submit the report after obtaining report from NMS. By referring to the report submitted by Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, in the capacity of Naib Tahsildar, it is submitted that the Judgments passed by Civil Court as well as Appellate Courts in the Eviction Suit, coupled with the fact that NMS had reported that the land in dispute is a Non- Government Land (v'kkldh; Hkwfe) and since, the land in dispute is an Abadi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 13 W.P. No.17777/2011 Land and is also a Non-Government Land (v'kkldh; Hkwfe), therefore, Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh had recommended for grant of Nazul No- Objection.
21. Considered the submissions made by Counsel for Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh.
22. From the report submitted by Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib-Tahsildar, in the Nazul Proceedings, the following questions would arise :
(a) Whether the question of title can be decided in Eviction Suit?
(b) Whether the decree passed in Eviction suit would be a judgment in personum or judgment in rem?
(c) Whether an Abadi Land can be a Non-Government Land (v'kkldh; Hkwfe)?
(d) Whether an unoccupied Land can be mutated in the name of the Petitioner?
23. It was rightly submitted by Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate, that in eviction suit, the question of title cannot be decided. It was also submitted that since, the suit for eviction was filed against the Tenants and State Govt. was not a party, therefore, the judgment passed in a suit for eviction cannot be treated as a judgment in rem and thus, it would not be binding on the State. It was further submitted that in the light of Section 243 of M.P.L.R. Code, a Non-Government Land (v'kkldh; Hkwfe) cannot be an Abadi Land and an unoccupied land cannot be mutated in the name of any private person without any allotment.
24. In the present case, it is no body's case that the land in question was ever allotted to the Petitioner by any State Authority, but on the contrary the case of the Petitioner is that the land was gifted to father of the petitioner by Nawab of Obedulla.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 14 W.P. No.17777/2011
25. Sections 243, 244 and 245 of MPLR Code read as under :
243. Abadi.-- (1) Where the area reserved for abadi is in the opinion of the Collector insufficient, he may reserve such further area from the unoccupied land in the village as he may think fit.
(2) Where unoccupied land for purposes of abadi is not available, the State Government may acquire any land for the extension of abadi.
(3) The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), shall apply to such acquisition and compensation shall be payable for the acquisition of such land in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
244. Disposal of abadi sites.--Subject to rules made in this behalf the Gram Panchayat or where a Gram Panchayat has not been constituted, the Tahsildar shall dispose of sites in the abadi area.
245. Rights to hold house site free of land revenue.-- A building site of reasonable dimensions in the abadi shall not be liable to the payment of land revenue if such site is occupied by a kotwar or a person who holds land or works as an agricultural artisan or an agricultural labourer in such village or in a village usually cultivated from such village.
26. The Revenue Authorities have no right to adjudicate the rights of the litigating parties, and the same has to be adjudicated by the Civil Court only. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hariprasad Bairagi Vs. Radheshyam and Others, reported in 2022 (1) MPLJ 414 has held as under:
"9. Appellant has raised the ground of application of Chapter IV (Mutations in the Khasra) of Rules Regarding Record of Rights framed under the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 15 W.P. No.17777/2011 provisions of MPLRC in which he placed reliance over Rule 24 and 32. Relevant rules are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference :-
"24. The Patwari shall maintain a register in Form E in which he shall enter villagewise every change in ownership of land due to transfers by registered deeds, inheritance, survivourship, bequest or lease reported to him under section 109 or which come to his notice from intimations received from Gram Panchayat or from any other source.
32. Disputes shall be decided summarily by the Tahsildar on the basis of title and not possession. Any transfer by a person whose name is not recorded in the Khasra shall not be admitted in mutation by the Tahsildar. The order shall contain the names of the parties and witnesses and a brief summary of the evidence produced by either side together with the Tahsildar findings thereon."
These rules are provided in Chapter IV of said Rules which deals regarding Mutations in the Khasra. On close scrutiny, it appears that it does not deal in respect of ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts from adjudication of Title. It only talks about maintenance of register by Patwari in which every change in ownership of land due to various modes of Transfers gets recorded and other rules indicate the mechanism for Recording such Rights.
10. So far as Rule 32 is concerned, it does not talk about disputes arising out of respective rights of parties but it contemplates disputes in respect of recording entries in Khasra while undertaking mutation proceedings. Therefore, summary enquiry by Tahsildar is being envisaged.
11. Rules 24 and 32 of Rules Regarding Record of Rights (under M. P. Land Revenue Code) do not contemplate adjudication of title by Tahsildar. It is meant for recording "Consequence of Adjudication"
and "Transfer of Ownership" for mutation purpose. Summary proceedings as contemplated in Rule 32 are only for the purpose of recording of rights of parties. It Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 16 W.P. No.17777/2011 nowhere, gives authority to Tahsildar to go into the question of title and decide the title by leading evidence in the proceedings. Tahsildar on his own accord cannot record evidence and decide the title arising out of Will. It is the domain of Civil Courts only and understandably so because Civil Court has all necessary tools of adjudication like proper pleadings, summoning of witnesses, recording of evidence, marshaling and appreciation of evidence and other ancillary mechanism along with trained judicial minds. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal vs. Chetu Batte, 1976 M.P.L.J. (F.B.) 325 = AIR 1976 MP 160 categorically held in somewhat similarly pleaded facts as under:-
"Determination of the question of title is the province of the Civil Court and unless there is any express provision to the contrary, exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be assumed or implied. The scheme of the Code consistently preserves the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide questions of title and that jurisdiction is not excluded."
The Full Bench of this Court taken into account sections 250 and 257 of MPLRC while considering this aspect. Decision of Full Bench of this Court is found to be a good law by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohini Prasad and ors. vs. Kasturchand and anr., AIR 2000 SC 1283.
12. Recently, in the case of Murari and anr. vs. State of M. P. and ors., 2020(4) M.P.L.J. 139 coordinate Division Bench of this Court held that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to test the correctness and genuineness of the Will, therefore, the names of the parties cannot be mutated on the basis of Will if one party approaches to it because they have a remedy to approach the Civil Court for declaration of their title.
13. Similarly, learned writ Court does not falter when it mandates that any proceedings between the parties as contemplated under section 31 of MPLRC does not take into its ambit the question of adjudication of title of parties on the basis of a Will. It contemplates a situation where application for mutation is a Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 17 W.P. No.17777/2011 proceeding where all legal heirs are brought on record after the death of owner of the agriculture holding. It does not contemplate adjudication of title. Therefore, on this count also, learned writ Court is right in its approach while relegating the parties to the civil Court, if they desire so, to get the Will tested on the altar of evidence to be led in civil suit before competent civil Court."
27. It is further submitted by Shri Nikhil Tiwari, that as per unamended provisions of Section 57(2) of M.P.L.R. Code, at the relevant time, the S.D.O. was competent to decide the question with regard to dispute as to whether the land is Govt. Land or not, but fairly conceded that no such decision was ever taken by the then S.D.O. in this regard, except by saying that the report submitted by the Naib-Tahsildar is accepted and mutation be carried out after the withdrawal or disposal of suit. Shri Tiwari also could not point out that when the suit for Declaration of Title and Mandatory Injunction was already pending, then why parallel proceedings were initiated for mutation of name of Petitioner and why those proceedings were not kept in abeyance awaiting the final outcome of the Civil Suit?
28. Thus, it is clear that the Revenue Authorities had no authority whatsoever, to decide as to whether the land in question was ever given to the father of the Petitioner by Nawab of Obedulla by Oral Hiba or not? It was repeatedly asked to the Counsel for Petitioner, State as well as Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, as to whether any Civil Court has declared the title of father of Petitioner on the basis of Oral Hiba or not, and it was repeatedly accepted by them, that there is no declaration in that regard. It is submitted by Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Add. Advocate General that the C.S. No. 153A/2009 was filed for declaration of title and Mandatory Injunction, in which compromise was done by Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh unauthorisedly.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 18 W.P. No.17777/2011
29. However, it is clear from the compromise decree drawn in C.S. No. 153A/2009, the title of the Petitioner was not declared by the Trial Court.
30. Now the question for consideration is as to whether Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh had acted in bonafide manner or malafide manner?
31. It is not out of place to mention here that an application filed by the Petitioner for mutation of his name was rejected by the predecessor of Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, Naib Tahsildar. Thereafter, it was Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh who by his recommendation dated 31-5-2010 proposed that the name of Petitioner be mutated in the revenue record. Similarly, it was Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, Naib Tahsildar who made a recommendation to S.D.O., Nazul to grant Nazul No-Objection. Since, Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh was working as a Revenue Officer, therefore, it is clear that he should have been aware of the fact that an Abadi land cannot be a private land. Furthermore, as per provisions of Section 244 of M.P.L.R. Code, an Abadi land can be disposed of by the Gram Panchayat and in absence of Gram Panchayat, by the Tahsildar. Furthermore, the Abadi land can be allotted for house sites. It is nobody's case, that the land in dispute, which according to Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh was an Abadi land was ever allotted by Gram Panchayat or by Tahsildar to the Petitioner.
32. Thus, without there being any right in favour of the Petitioner, Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh ensured that the land in dispute is recorded in the name of Petitioner and also ensured that Nazul No-Objection is also issued in favour of Petitioner.
33. It is well established principle of law that Mutation Entries are not document of title and are meant for fiscal purposes. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (civil) No.13146/2021 has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 19 W.P. No.17777/2011 "6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter. 6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights.
Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v.
Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v.
State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342;
Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259;
and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC
70."
34. As per the Show Cause Notice dated 17-8-2011 issued under Section 50 of MPLR Code, the land was originally recorded in the name of Revenue Department, Govt. Land.
35. Furthermore, in his statement before the Trial Court, Bajrang Bahadur Singh never claimed that he has been authorized by the State Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 20 W.P. No.17777/2011 Govt. or by S.D.O. to enter into compromise. The Statement of Bajrang Bahadur Singh given by him for verification of compromise reads as under:
bl izdj.k es izfroknh dh vksj ls izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh gwa rFkk esjs }kjk vkt U;k;ky; es izLrqr vkosnu i= varxZr vkns'k 23 fu;e 3 i< fy;k gS vkSj ml ij gLrk{kj fd;s gSA ;g fd jktLo fujh{k ds izfrosnu ds vuqlkj fookfnr Hkwfe dk fof/kor lhekadu djus ds Ik'pkr~ oknxzLr laifRr dks v'kkldh; ik;k x;k gS rFkk 'kklu }kjk /kksf"kr vkcknh es fLFkr Hkw[k.M ik;k gS rFkk ekSds ij [kljk dzeakd 480@01 es 27 Mhlhey rFkk 674@01 es -01 MhLkhey Hkwfe vFkkZRk~ dqy 12125 oxZ QhV Hkwfe ij oknh dk fuokZn dCtk vfookfnr gSA vr% oknh ds i{k es bl vk'k; dh /kks".kkRed lgk;rk fn, tkus ij eq>s vkifRr ugh gS fd vkosnu i= ds layXu ekufp= es yky jax es n'kkZbZ xbZ Hkwfe tks fd flVh losZ dzekad 14674 ds [kljk dzekad 480@01 rFkk 674@01 ds dqy jdck 12125 oxZfQV dk vkf/kiR;/kkjh ,oa fof/k vuqlkj dCtk /kkjh gS rFkk oknh mDr laifRr ij vko';d vuqefr;ka ysdj fuekZ.k dj ldsxkA ;g fd izLRkqr vkosnu fcuk fdlh ncko es gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;kA
36. Thus, it is clear that Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, by claiming that he is OIC, entered into compromise without any further declaration, that he has been authorized by State Govt. or by any other authority.
37. There is another aspect of the matter. From the plain reading of this statement, it is clear that there was no admission with regard to title of the Petitioner, then how Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, could admit that the possession of the Petitioner was in accordance with Law and he can carry out the construction work? All the above mentioned aspects were not clarified by Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate. On the contrary, it was admitted that the Abadi land cannot be a Non-Government Land and Judgment passed in Eviction Suit cannot be a judgment in rem. How, Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, could have treated the judgment passed in the eviction suit, as a judgment of declaration of title, could not be explained by Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate. In fact, Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate was uncomfortable Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 21 W.P. No.17777/2011 with queries which were being raised by the Court. Be that whatever it may be. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that the land in dispute was an unoccupied Non-Government Land, then how Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib-Tahsildar could have recommended for mutation of name of Petitioner, without any allotment of the same in favor of Petitioner, was also not explained by Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Advocate. On the contrary, it was accepted, that an unoccupied Non-Government Land cannot be mutated in the name of Petitioner, without there being any title in his favor.
38. Even otherwise, the Trial Court passed a compromise decree without declaring the title of the Petitioner. Thus, it is clear that even according to the compromise, which was unauthorisedly entered into by Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib-Tahsildar, the Petitioner cannot be treated as owner.
39. At the cost of repetition, the entire scam started only after Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh joined as Naib Tahsildar because his predecessor had already rejected the application filed by Petitioner for mutation of his name. Therefore, it is clear that the conduct of Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh was not bonafide but it was malafide and he was out and out to ensure that the land in dispute is somehow mutated in the name of the Petitioner. Conduct of other Revenue Authorities including Shri Nikunj Shrivastava
40. The respondents had filed their return on 5-10-2012 and in that return, they had specifically taken a stand that Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh had unauthorizedly entered into a compromise in C.S. No.153A/2009. However, it appears that they deliberately sat over the matter. Only when the co-ordinate Bench of this Court took a serious note of the matter and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 22 W.P. No.17777/2011 passed order dated 18-4-2024, the Revenue Authorities woke up slightly and started making efforts to cover up their misdeeds.
41. An affidavit of Shri Nikunj Shrivastava, Principal Secretary, Revenue (He is the same officer, who had issued show cause notice dated 17-8-2011, thereby calling upon the petitioner as to why suo-motu power of revision be not exercised, but thereafter did not take any action even after joining as Principal Secretary, Revenue Department). In this affidavit it was mentioned that now MJC No.177 of 2024 has been filed for setting aside the Compromise Decree. It was also mentioned that as many as 24 officers were posted as S.D.O., Nazul City, from 2011 till date. The list of Tahsildar, Nazul City, Bhopal from 2014 till today was also placed on record. It was also submitted that on 3-11-2011, the Commissioner, Bhopal had issued a show cause notice to Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh. However, time was sought to apprise this Court about the status of show cause notice dated 3-11-2011.
42. A supplementary affidavit was filed on 20-5-2024 pointing out that at the time of disposal of First Appeal No.334 of 2013, Shri Sandeep Karketta was posted as S.D.O., Nazul City Circle, Bhopal and there is nothing on record to show that what action was taken by Sandeep Karketta. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 16-5-2024 has been issued to Sandeep Karketta. Since, no proceedings were initiated in view of liberty granted in F.A. No.334 of 2013, therefore, show cause notice dated 16-5- 2014 has been issued to Shri Devendra Choudhary, who was posted as Tahsildar City Circle, Bhopal at the relevant time. It was further submitted that now a new show cause notice dated 9-5-2024 has been issued to Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, (who at present is posted as S.DO., Khandwa), by Commissioner, Bhopal. It was claimed that the affiant is a law abiding citizen of the Country. However, the affidavit is completely silent about Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 23 W.P. No.17777/2011 what action was taken against the S.D.O., who had directed for mutation of name of Petitioner after the withdrawal or disposal of suit.
43. Since, the State Counsel was not in a position to apprise this Court as to what happened to the Show Cause Notices issued to Sandeep Karketta, Devendra Choudhary and Bajrang Bahadur Singh, therefore, by order dated 16-7-2024, certain queries were raised.
44. Thereafter, in compliance of order dated 18-7-2024, action taken report was filed on 5-8-2024, mentioning that departmental charge sheet dated 19-7-2024 has been issued to Bajrang Bahadur Singh. It was further mentioned that direction has been given to complete the departmental enquiry within 45 days. On 2-8-2024, documents demanded by Bajrang Bahadur Singh were supplied. The reply filed by Devendra Choudhary, who at present is posted as Deputy Collector was not found satisfactory, therefore, a proposal has been given to initiate Departmental Enquiry. It was also submitted that after considering the reply of Shri Sandeep Karketta, further course of action shall be decided. An order has also been issued to initiate departmental enquiry against Devendra Choudhary.
45. Similarly, Shri Nikunj Shrivastava filed another affidavit pointing out, that he was the officer, who discovered the unauthorized act of Bajrang Bahadur Singh and accordingly, he sought permission from Law Department to challenge the compromise decree and accordingly by order dated 11-11-2011, permission was granted to file Writ Petition. Accordingly, W.P. No.195942011 was filed, which was disposed of with liberty to take steps for challenging the Judgment and Decree in accordance to law by filing appeal under Section 96 of CPC. Accordingly, F.A. No. 334/2013 was filed on 2-5-2013. His tenure as Collector, Bhopal came to an end on 27-5-2013. Thereafter, by order dated 28-4-2014, the Division Bench of this Court, dismissed the F.A. No.334/2013 by giving liberty to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 24 W.P. No.17777/2011 State to approach the Civil Court itself. Thereafter, State Govt. appointed OIC but surprisingly, MJC No.177/2024 was filed before Trial Court.
46. Thereafter, in compliance of order dated 5-8-2024, Additional Reply was filed on 28-8-2024 mentioning therein that in response to show cause notice dated 3-11-2011 issued by Commissioner, Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh demanded certain documents and prayed for extension of time to file reply. Thereafter, on 13-12-2011 another application was filed by Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh for supply of certified copy of documents and accordingly by letter dated 19-12-2011, the Deputy Collector, directed the Nazul Officer, to provide the necessary documents demanded by Bajrang Bahadur Singh and thereafter, fresh notice was issued on 6-5-2024. Thus, it is clear that after 19-12-2011, the matter was thrown in dust bin and no departmental action was taken against Bajrang Bahadur Singh. Thus, it is clear that inspite of the fact that the State Authorities had filed their return in the present case on 5-10-2012, deliberately did not take any action against Bajrang Bahadur Singh against whom, the State Authorities themselves had leveled a serious allegation that he had unauthorisedly entered into a compromise in C.S. No.153A/ 2009.
47. Another reply was filed by the State Authorities on 16-10-2024 pointing out that show cause notices have been issued to G.S. Dhurve, Nazul Officer, City, Bhopal, Shri Rajendra Nindwar, Retired Asstt. Grade II and Shri Dharmkant Longre, Asstt. Grade III as they have been found prima facie accountable for destruction of Nazul Record.
48. Although Shri Harpreet Ruprah, Add. Advocate General was all the time insisting that the authorities are not negligent in taking action, and still they are not trying to protect any erring officer, but was not able to give any answer that when the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had taken serious note of the scam by its order dated 18-4-2024, and more than 6 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 25 W.P. No.17777/2011 months have passed thereafter, then why no action has been taken except by issuing Show Cause Notice or Departmental Charge Sheet. Thus, it is clear that the Revenue Department is still trying to protect its guilty officers and is trying to play mischief with the Court by merely submitting that action is being taken against the erring and guilty Revenue Officers. It is made clear that a certificate is issued by the Revenue Officers to themselves, by claiming that they are very serious, but the self-proclaimed honesty is not sufficient unless and until, it is reflected in their action. It is really unfortunate, that the Revenue Department is encouraging the persons who were actively involved in land scam and who also played fraud on the Trial Court by entering into compromise.
49. Thus, it is clear that the officers are still out and out to protect their officers, who according to the respondents themselves, are guilty of throwing away the Govt. Land by illegally entering into compromise and thereafter by illegally sitting over the matter for 10 years after the F.A. No. 334/2013 was dismissed with liberty to approach the Trial Court. It is really surprising that on one hand the respondents were claiming that the compromise was unauthorisedly entered into by Bajrang Bahadur Singh which resulted in compromise decree in favor of Petitioner, but at the same time, no effective action was taken to get the said compromise decree set aside.
50. At this juncture, this Court is refraining itself from observing any further because it is for the State Govt. to ensure, that whether it wants to protect the guilty officers who are involved in throwing away the Govt. land or whether it wants to protect the public property.
51. It is submitted by Shri Sankalp Kochar, Counsel for Petitioner, that compromise was entered into at the fag end of the Trial. However, this Court has failed to understand the real intention behind aforesaid Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 26 W.P. No.17777/2011 submission. After the evidence is recorded, a civil suit filed by the plaintiff can be decreed and can be dismissed also. If the petitioner was so confident that he has a good case and there is every likelihood of his success, then he should not have joined hands with Bajrang Bahadur Singh in obtaining a compromise decree. This Court has already held that the entire scam started only after Bajrang Bahadur Singh joined as Naib Tahsildar.
52. It is further submitted by Shri Sankalp Kochar that Petitioner has also filed a civil suit No.40A/2011 for grant of permanent injunction. However, it is submitted by Counsel for the State that the suit was dismissed. The Civil Appeal filed by the Petitioner was allowed and matter was remanded back against which M.A. No.3117/2013 was filed which was allowed by order dated 24-8-2015 and now it appears that matter is pending before Appellate Court. Be that whatever it may be. The aforesaid litigation is not the subject matter of this Case. Correctness of the impugned order dated 12-10-2011
53. The present petition has been filed by petitioner against the order dated 12-10-2011 by which preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with regard to maintainability of revision registered on suo motu exercise of power was dismissed. Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court cannot quash/set aside the compromise decree dated 4-8-2010 passed in C.S. No.153A/2009. Furthermore, MJC No.177 of 2024 is also pending before the Trial Court for setting aside Compromise Decree (It is not out of place to mention here that MJC No.177 of 2024 has been filed only after the serious note was taken by this Court and filing of MJC No.177 of 2024 was not on account of any serious act on the part of the Revenue officers to protect the Govt. Land). Therefore, nothing more is being said about the correctness of the Compromise Decree dated 4-8-2010.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 27 W.P. No.17777/2011
54. So far as the suo motu exercise of power under Section 50 of MPLR Code is concerned, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (Supra) has held that suo motu powers of revision can be exercised within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of information.
55. In the present case, Nazul No-Objection was granted by order dated 14-6-2010. Appeal was filed by Sanjay Anand Lalwani against Mutation Order and NOC granted in favor of Petitioner. The said appeal was filed on 9-6-2011. Further, this Court has already come to a conclusion that Naib- Tahsildar Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh and the then S.D.O. were out and out to mutate the name of Petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that as soon as the Collector, came to know about the entire scam, he issued show cause notice to Petitioner on 17-8-2011, thereby calling upon to explain as to why suo motu power of revision be not exercised under Section 50 of MPLR Code. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the suo motu exercise of power was barred by time, or was hit by law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra). Whether Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh is liable to pay any mesne profits to the State Govt. on account of his misadventures and unauthorized act of entering into compromise?
56. By order dated 5-8-2024, the following Show Cause Notice was also issued to Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh :
Also issue notice to Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib Tahsildar to explain that under whose instructions, he had entered into a compromise and also to show cause as to why he may not be directed to pay the mesne profit @ Rs.20,000/- per month to the State of M.P. from the date of compromise till final disposal of this case.
57. Nothing has been submitted by Counsel for Bajrang Bahadur Singh in this regard.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 28 W.P. No.17777/2011
58. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion, that since, it is Bajrang Bahadur Singh who unauthorisedly gave away the land of the State Govt. to the Petitioner, therefore, he must compensate the State Govt. for depriving it of the said land. Accordingly, it is directed that Bajrang Bahadur Singh shall pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the State Govt. by way of mesne profits from the date of filing of application for compromise i.e., 4-8-2010 till the payment is actually paid. The mesne profits be deposited in the office of Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, within a period of 2 months from today and Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, shall send an information in this regard to the Registrar General of this Court within a period of 15 days from thereafter. If the mesne profits are not deposited, then the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department shall also inform the Registrar General in this regard and in case if the mesne profits are not paid by Bajrang Bahadur Singh, then not only the Registrar General shall initiate the proceedings for recovery of amount, but shall also register a case for Contempt of Court.
58. So far as the other erring officers are concerned, this Court has no belief on the Revenue Department because according to the respondents, the departmental enquiry initiated against Bajrang Bahadur Singh was directed to be concluded within 45 days, but nothing has been done. Even no departmental charge sheet has been issued against Devendra Choudhary, although a decision has already been taken in this regard. So far as Sandeep Karketta is concerned, nothing has been done so far. Even according to the affidavit of Shri Nikunj Shrivastava, lot of officers had held the office of S.D.O. and Tahsildar but no one took any action to take further action in the light of liberty granted by this Court in F.A. No.334/2013. Thus, it is clear that by sitting over the matter for 10 long years, and by not making any attempt to get the compromise decree, set aside, these offices have also Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 29 W.P. No.17777/2011 facilitated the Petitioner in keeping his possession over the land in dispute. Furthermore, no action was taken against the S.D.O. who had mutated the name of Petitioner by order dated 31-5-2010. Therefore, the Chief Secretary, State of M.P. is directed to monitor the Departmental Actions against Devendra Choudhary and Sandeep Karketta and shall ensure that Departmental Enquiries are completed within a period of 6 months from the date of issuance of Charge Sheet. So far as Departmental Action initiated against Bajrang Bahadur Singh is concerned, it shall be ensured that the Departmental Enquiry is concluded within 45 days from today.
59. The Chief Secretary, State of M.P. is also directed to personally enquire into the role played by OICs, or S.D.O.s, or Tahsildars who did not take any action in the light of liberty granted by this Court in F.A. No. 334/2009.
60. The Chief Secretary, State of M.P., is requested to ensure that the Revenue Authorities are meant to protect the State Property and they should not indulge in land scams by somehow parting with Govt. Lands without any authority of law and without any right of the claimant. If no stern action is taken against any of the erring officers, then it shall be presumed that even Chief Secretary, is trying to protect the erring officers.
61. The Collector, Bhopal is directed to finally decide the Revision within a period of 2 months from the date of appearance before Collector, Bhopal. The Petitioner shall appear before the Collector, Bhopal on 25 th of October, 2024. No further notice shall be required to be issued to the Petitioner. If the Petitioner fails to appear before Collector, Bhopal on 25th of October, 2024, then the Collector, Bhopal shall proceed ex-parte against the Petitioner and no application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings shall be entertained.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:52084 30 W.P. No.17777/2011
62. Under hope and belief that good sense would prevail and the Revenue Authorities would rise to the occasion and would discharge their duties with utmost honesty, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by Petitioner in the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from today. The cost has been imposed because 13 long years have passed on account of stay and the Petitioner is enjoying the possession of the land in dispute. If the cost is not deposited, then not only the Registrar General shall initiate the proceedings for recovery of amount, but shall also register a case for Contempt of Court.
63. The Interim Order dated 24-10-2011 is hereby Vacated.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-10-2024 16:50:03