Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prem Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Ratan Bai vs Prahalad Singh on 19 June, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 19 th OF JUNE, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 4346 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. PREM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. RATAN BAI
W/O LATE SHRI PREM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 60
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILL.
SANAVAL BADAGAON TEH. GANJ BASODA
DIST.VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SANJEEV SINGH S/O LATE PREM SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
SANAVAL BADAGAON, TEHSIL GANJ BASODA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O LATE PREM SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
SANAVAL BADAGAON, TEHSIL GANJ BASODA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUNITA BANGI D/O LATE PREM SINGH W/O
HYHGAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSWIFE BHESHWAR, TEHSIL
KURWAI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. TULSA BAI D/O LATE PREM SINGH W/O BRAJESH
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSWIFE KARRUA, TEHSIL GULABGANJ
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ASHISH SARASWAT - ADVOCATE)
AND
PRAHALAD SINGH S/O SHRI ROOP SINGH DANGI VILL.
SANAVAL BADAGAON TEH. GANJ BASODA DIST.
VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI S.S. RAJPUT - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 21-06-2023
06:38:39 PM
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2016 passed by Board of Revenue, Gwalior; whereby, Revision No.4082/PBR/2012 preferred by the respondent under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ''MPLRC'') was allowed by setting aside the order dated 08.10.2012 passed by Tehsildar; whereby, an application for mutating the name of present respondent in the revenue records was allowed.
Against the order of Board of Revenue, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior by invoking the provisions of Revision as provided under Section 50 of MPLRC, 1959 is per se illegal as under Sub- section (2) of Section 50 of MPLRC wherever an order is appealable, no revision would lie.
It was further argued that as per Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the MPLRC, the Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to call for the record and to ascertain the legality/illegality of any order passed by the Commissioner but here is an order has been passed by Tehsildar and the Board of Revenue, Gwalior was not having any jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the said order, therefore, the impugned order herein is per se illegal and deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior wherein the order of the Tehsildar Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 21-06-2023 06:38:39 PM 3 rejecting the application for mutating the name of the respondent in the revenue records since was rejected on the ground of maintainability, cannot be said to be illegal and the said order is fully in consonance with the provisions of Section 50 of the MPLRC; thus, prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since the controversy involved in the present matter is in a very narrow compass, therefore, the facts in detail are not necessary to be narrated. The only question which is involved in the present matter is that whether the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior by invoking the provisions of Revision as provided under Section 50 of MPLRC, 1959 was justified and the same can be sustained. In the above context, provisions of Section 50 of MPLRC are required to be seen, which are quoted below:-
"50. Revision (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5),-
(a) the Board may, at any time on its own motion or on an application made by any party, call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which an order has been passed under this Code by the Commissioner;
(b) the Commissioner may, at any time on his own motion or on an application made by any party, call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which an order has been passed under this Code by the Collector or the District Survey Officer;
(c) the Collector or the District Survey Officer may, at any time on his own motion or on an application of any party, call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which an order has been passed under this Code by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him;and if it appears that the subordinate Revenue Officer.-
(i) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by this Code; or
(ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(iii) has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 21-06-2023 06:38:39 PM 4 material irregularity, the Board or the Commissioner or the Collector or the District Survey Officer may make such order in the case as it or he thinks fit (2) No application for revision shall be entertained-
(a) against an order appealable under this Code;
(b) against any order passed in second appeal under this Code;
(c) against an order passed in revision;
(d) against an order of the Commissioner under section 210;
(e) unless presented within forty five days from the date of order or its communication to the party, whichever is later:
Provided that where an order, against which an application for revision is being preferred, was made before the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2018 the period of limitation for presenting the application for revision shall be as provided in the Code prior to the said Amendment Act.
(3) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx "
As per Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the MPLRC, no application for revision shall be entertained against an order which is appealable under this Code; thus, it is very much clear that an order which is appealable, no revision would lie against it and as the order passed by the Tehsildar which is an appealable order under Section 44 of the MPLRC, therefore, there is clear bar of filing a revision. Even otherwise as per Section 1(a) of Section 50 of the MPLRC, the Board of Revenue can hear any revision which is preferred against the order challenging the legality/illegality of the order passed by the Commissioner but here the order has been passed by the Tehsildar; on this count also, the revision preferred before the before Board of Revenue was not maintainable.
Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Board of Revenue, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 21-06-2023 06:38:39 PM 5 Gwalior vide impugned order dated 01.03.2016 had extended its jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order being per se illegal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 21-06-2023 06:38:39 PM