Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jnkvv, Jabalpur Th: Its Registrar vs Board Of Revenue Of M.P. Gwalior & Ors on 9 January, 2013
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
W.P. No.7313/2002
Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya
Vs.
Board of Revenue and others
W.P. No.27452/2003
State of M.P. and another
Vs.
Alok Kumar Lohia and others
Present: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.
W.P. No.7313/2002
Shri P. N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the
State Government.
Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the private
respondents.
W.P. No.27452/2003
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Panel Lawyer for the
petitioners.
Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for respondents No.1 &
2.
Shri P. N. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No
ORDER
( 8.01.2013 ) As challenge in both these petitions are made to an order dated 2.12.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience the documents available and the pleadings in W.P. No.7313/2002 is being referred to in this order.
22. Dispute in question pertains to certain land situated in District Tikamgarh and the land in question is said to have been allotted to the Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya for establishment of an Agriculture Zonal Research Station at Tikamgarh. Facts with regard to allotment of the land by the State Government to the Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya vide Annexure P/2 dated May, 1981 is not in dispute. By the said letter 80 hectares of agriculture land was allotted to the Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya. The allotted land was situated in Khasra No.965/2/1, 965/2, 965/1 situated in Lalitpur Highway, Tikamgarh. Certain land bearing Khasra No.960 also forms part of the area allotted to the University and the area allotted under this Khasra Number was ).394 and 0.022 hectares. The dispute pertains to this area of land. After the land was allotted to the University and the University took possession of the land, the Principal of the Government Post Graduate College, Tikamgarh found that certain constructions are being raised in the land in question and pointing out that the construction is being made illegally, complaints were made to the authorities concerned. As a result the Revenue case was registered and a detailed enquiry conducted and in the enquiry it transpired that from the year 1957 up to the year 1958 the land bearing Khasra No.960 was recorded as Nazul land belonging to the Government. However, after 1958 without any authentic document or record being available, it was found that in the revenue record, the land was recorded in the name of one Chhote Lal Dangi. Finding certain discrepancy in recording of the name in this regard, the powers of suo motu revision was exercised by the Collector and after due and detailed enquiry made regarding land bearing Khasra No.960 and after enquiry it was found by the Collector that certain revenue authorities in collusion with the predecessor of Chhotelal, the private respondents have 3 manipulated the revenue record and in an illegal and fraudulent manner changed the entries in the revenue record. Accordingly, after proper enquiry and due consideration of the entire circumstances, the Collector, Tikamgarh after hearing all concern passed a detailed order Annexure P/4 on 30th March, 2001 holding that the entry made sometimes in the year 1957-58 with regard to change in the revenue record to be a fraud committed and he quashed the entry and directed to delete the name of private respondents from the revenue record. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Collector on 30th March 2001 the predecessor of private respondent one Alok Kumar filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar. The Additional Commissioner, Sagar vide Annexure P/5 dated 26.7.2001 upheld the order passed by the Collector and therefore, Shri Alok Kumar approached the Board of Revenue by filing a revision under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code and revision petition having been allowed by the Board of Revenue, the State Government and the authorities of Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya have filed these writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue.
3. It may be taken note of that Board of Revenue has not entered into the merits of the controversy with regard to manipulation of revenue record and making entry in the fraudulent manner but has held that the powers of suo motu revision exercised by the Collector after a period of 40 years was not proper and holding that under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code the powers of Suo Motu revision could not be exercised after such a long period of time, quashed both the orders Annexure P/4 and P/5 passed by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner respectively.
44. Shri P. N. Dubey and Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the findings recorded by the Collector in his order Annexure P/4 dated 30.3.2001 consisting of more than 28 pages and pointed out that as large scale fraud and manipulation of record along with misrepresentation was deducted by the Collector in the proceedings held the action was taken, they emphasized that till the year 1988-89 nothing was known to anybody with regard to the manipulation in the record. It was only when the land was allocated to the authorities of Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya and when in the year 1999 construction was being made, for the first time a complaint was made to the Collector on 17.6.99. The Collector directed the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry and submit a report. The revenue authorities submitted report in this regard some times in the year 1999 and it was then that the entire scenario came to light and the Collector thought it appropriate to initiate the action for exercising the powers of suo motu revision under Section 50. Pointing out that merely on the ground of initiating the powers of suo motu revision after a period of 40 years the Board of Revenue had interfered into the matter when a large scale manipulation in the record and fraud is found in the enquiry, therefore, the Board of Revenue committed error in interfering on the technical ground of delay, learned counsel prays for interference into the matter. Inviting my attention to a judgment of Supreme Court in Ningawwa Vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hirekhrabar and others - AIR 1968 SC 956 and Union of India and others Vs. Ramesh Gandhi - (2012)1 SCC 476, learned counsel argued that fraud vitiates all action and if fraud is committed and Government land usurped by fraudulent means, the powers of suo motu revision can be exercised and the order passed by the Board of Revenue for precipitating a fraud warrants interference by this Court. Thereafter, inviting my attention to a Full Bench 5 judgment of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh Vs. State of M.P. - 2010(4) MPLJ 178, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that it has been held by this Court that for exercising powers of suo motu revision the limitation fixed is 180 days from the date of knowledge of the illegality, impropriety or irregularity committed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this case that for the first time complaints for the manipulation of record were made both by the Principal of Agriculture College and by certain other persons on or around 24.6.99. Thereafter, the Collector called for a detailed enquiry into the matter and based on the enquiry and the complaint submitted by the Principal of the institute on 19.6.99 when the illegal construction started, action was initiated, as it was only in the year 2000 that the enquiry was completed and the entire fraud came to light, Collector exercised the powers of suo motu revision within a reasonable time in the year 2000 itself and accordingly it is stated that in the light of law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra), the powers of suo motu revision having been exercised within a period of 180 days from the date of knowledge of fraud received by the Collector after a detailed enquiry report was submitted by the revenue authorities in the year 2000, the order of Board of Revenue in interfering with the matter is said to be improper. Accordingly, contending that a fraud committed which came to light subsequently after a proper enquiry has been unnecessarily interfered with by the Board of Revenue on the technical ground of delay, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for interference into the matter.
5. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the private respondents refutes the aforesaid and submits that right from the year 1988 the matter was taken up and as entry in the revenue record was made in the year 1957-58 and continuously after death 6 of the original owner the names of the legal heirs were brought on record from time to time, there is no reason for initiating the suo motu powers of revision after a period of more than 40 years. Accordingly contending that the Board of Revenue has not committed any error in interfering with the matter as the powers of suo motu revision has been exercised after an inordinate delay of more than 40 years, Shri Trivedi prays for interference into the matter.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On a perusal of the order passed by the Collector dated 30th March, 2001 it is seen that the land bearing Khasra No.960 forms part of the land which was allotted to the University concerned by the State Government in May, 1981. In May, 1981 when the land was allotted to the University it was in possession of the Government and was Nazul land. The land in question right from the year 1944 upto 1956-57 was shown to be a Government land in the revenue record but all of a sudden in 1958-59 the name of Shri Chhotelal Dangi is incorporated into the land. In the enquiry conducted at the instance of the Collector, large scale manipulation of records were deducted. The Collector in his order dated 30.3.2001 has gone into all these aspect in detail and found that without any basis without any document or without any authority the revenue record are manipulated in 1956-57 and the name of Chhotelal incorporated. It is found that the said act has been done in an unauthorized manner and there is no material to show that Chhotelal Dangi has acquired his right to the land and its ownership in a legal manner. It is only after complaints were made in the year 1999 that summoning of documents and their scrutiny and enquiry took place, when a prima facie case was made out on enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities in the year 2000 and 7 immediately thereafter the powers of suo motu revision has been exercised. This is a case where the land belonging to the Government is usurped in an unauthorized and fraudulent manner and the fact of entry by manipulation in the revenue record was not within the knowledge of the Collector or the competent authority. It only came to light in the year 1999-2000 and within a reasonable time, the Collector has exercised the powers of suo motu revision.
7. The question of exercising powers of suo motu revision under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code has been subject matter of deliberation before this Court in various cases and finally the controversy has been set to rest by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra). In the case of Ranveer Singh (supra) the question before the Full Bench was as to within what period of time the powers of suo motu revision should be exercised. After evaluating various aspects of the matter and after taking note of various judgments on the question it has been held by the Full Bench that the powers of suo motu revision should be exercised within a period of 180 days from the date of coming into the knowledge of the authorities concerned any particular illegality, impropriety or irregularity done in the matter. If that is the principle of law and if the same is applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be seen that even for manipulation of the revenue record took place in the year 1957-58 it was not known to the competent authority of the State Government because in May 1981 when the land was transferred to the Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya along with various other adjoining land the Government was not aware of the entry with regard to the land in question. Not only the disputed land but various other lands adjoining thereto was allotted to the University. The University constructed its College, hostel and this piece of land was kept as 8 open land and it was only in the year 1999 when the predecessor of the private respondents started making construction on the land that the Principal of the Institute made a complaint to the Collector on 17.6.99 and it was thereafter when the Collector took note of the matter, ordered for enquiry and when enquiry report was submitted to him in the year 2000 he immediately exercised the powers of suo motu revision as large scale manipulation in the record as is detailed by the Collector in his order came to light. It is therefore, a case where within a reasonable time of coming to know about the fraud and the manipulation done the Collector has exercised the powers of suo motu revision and therefore, the exercise of powers of suo motu revision by the Collector in the facts and circumstances of the case was proper. The Board of Revenue interfered into the matter only by holding that the Collector could not exercise the powers of suo motu revision after long delay of 40 years but while doing so the Board of Revenue did not follow the principles laid down as held in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra), did not take note of large scale fraudulent activities deducted by the Collector and without going on merits of the matter only on the ground of delay interfered. In doing so, I am of the considered view that the Board of Revenue has committed a grave error. The Board of Revenue should have caused an enquiry into the matter and should have seen as to whether there is reasonable justification on the part of the revenue authorities in taking action in the year 1999 and 2000 and should have evaluated the claim in the backdrop of the law as has been laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra). Even though the law laid down in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra) may not be available before the Board of Revenue when the impugned action was taken but the law laid down much earlier to that by another Full Bench of this Court wherein similar principles has been laid down in the case of Usha Devi and others Vs. State 9 of M.P. - 1990 MPLJ Page 353 could have been taken note of. In this case also it has been held that if a fraud has been committed and if the fraud was not within the knowledge of the competent authority then within a reasonable time of coming into knowledge of the fraud or manipulation the action could be taken.
8. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Board of Revenue has committed a grave error in interfering with the matter only on the ground of delay. It was a case where by use of fraudulent means Government land was being usurped by the private persons in an illegal manner and when the fraud came to the notice of the competent authority, action was taken within a reasonable time. In doing so, the authorities have not committed any error and the Board of Revenue instead of evaluating the matter on merits has committed grave error only interfering on the ground of delay. Accordingly, finding the order passed by the Board of Revenue to be unsustainable both the petitions are allowed. Order passed by Board of Revenue are quashed. Delay in initiating the suo motu revision is found to be properly explained and it is held that the powers of suo motu revision has been exercised in accordance to law and therefore, the matter should be dealt with on merits.
9. Accordingly, both these petitions are allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to consider the question of interfering on merits.
10. Both the petitions stands accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs mishra