Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.5961/2021
(Pradeep Soni and Anr. vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated : 13.08.2021
Shri Prashant Sharma, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ajay Raghuvanshi, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Additional Collector whereby the permission has been granted to the Sub-Divisional Officer to take the matter under review.
It is submitted that the order has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The aforesaid order was assailed before the Commissioner and the learned Additional Commissioner on 27.12.2019 has set aside the said order passed by the Additional Collector and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 27.12.2019 was put to challenge before the learned Board of Revenue by preferring a second appeal and the learned Board of Revenue has quashed the orders dated 13.11.2019 and 27.12.2019 and thereafter himself has given the fresh permission to Sub Divisional Officer to review the order of 2008. It is argued that when no relief was claimed by the petitioners in relief clause only challenge being made to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner before the Board of Revenue, then the Board of Revenue on its statutory jurisdiction taking the matter on its own and granted permission for suo motu proceedings. It is argued that the valuable right of the petitioners at one stage has been taken away by the authorities by granting such permission. As a notice was required to be given by the authorities to the petitioners pointing out the fact that they are willing to take up the suo motu 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5961/2021 (Pradeep Soni and Anr. vs. State of M.P.) proceedings and on the notice the petitioners are required to be heard prior to granting such permission. He has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar Vrs. Nilima Mandal & Anr., (2008) 17 SCC 491. It is further submitted that the main question before the Board of Revenue was that whether the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner remanding the matter back to the Collector and granting him permission to take up the matter in suo motu proceedings only on the ground that no notice was issued with respect to suo motu proceedings and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners. In such circumstances, the order is per se illegal and has prayed for setting aside of the order. He has drawn attention of this Court to para 13 of the order passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal and has submitted that on one hand the Board of Revenue has quashed the orders passed by the SDO dated 30.11.2019 and thereafter passed by the Additional Commissioner Division Gwalior on 27.12.2019, and on the contrary the learned Board of Revenue has granted permission for suo motu proceedings. The similar mistake has been committed by the learned Board of Revenue. If a decision is required to be taken for taking up the matter in suo motu proceedings, then the show cause notice was required to be issued to the petitioners pointing out intentions of the government to proceed in the matter on suo motu basis. In such circumstances, the order is bad in law and prays for setting aside of the impugned order.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is a well reasoned and justified order. The case in hand is deals with some fraud 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5961/2021 (Pradeep Soni and Anr. vs. State of M.P.) being played with the government land on the basis of which when the matter came to the knowledge of the authorities a decision was taken to initiate suo motu proceedings. Earlier the SDO has passed an order to take up the matter in suo motu proceedings which was put to challenge before the Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner has set aside the order on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners. Thereafter, has remanded the matter back to hear the petitioners on the question of granting of opportunity. Both the orders were put to challenge before the learned Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has passed a detailed and a well reasoned order setting aside the orders passed by the SDO and Additional Commissioner and thereafter the learned Board of Revenue has already considered the matter in detail and opportunity of detailed hearing was provided to the petitioners. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue decided to take up the matter in suo motu proceedings, relying upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Hamza Haji Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (2006) 7 SCC 416-A. The direction is further granted to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to establish his case. No illegality is committed by the authorities. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record it is seen that the learned Board of Revenue has set aside both the orders passed by the SDO dated 30.11.2019 granting permission for review of the order and thereafter the order dated 27.12.2019. The remand order passed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5961/2021 (Pradeep Soni and Anr. vs. State of M.P.) to the petitioners prior to passing such order. The learned Board of Revenue after setting aside both the orders have taken up the matter under Section 57 (2) of MPLRC and has granted permission to the authorities after hearing the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners have already availed ample opportunity of hearing before the authorities and a detailed order has been passed by the Board of Revenue. On the question of decision for suo motu proceedings, the petitioners have been heard in detailed before the learned Board of Revenue.
Section 51 of MPLRC is required to be seen. It reads as under:--
"51. Review of orders (1).-- The Board any Revenue Officer may, either suo motu or on an application of any party interested, review any order passed by it or him, or by any predecessor-in-office and pass such order in reference thereto as it or he may thinks fit:
Provided that--
(i) if the Commissioner, Collector or District Survey Officer thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Board, and if an officer subordinate to the Collector od District Survey Officer proposes to review an order, whether passed by himself or his predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in writing of the Collector or District Survey Officer to whom he is immediate subordinate;
(ii) No order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order;
(iii) No order from which an appeal has been made, or which is the subject of any revision proceedings shall, so long as such appeal or proceedings are pending be reviewed;
(iv) No order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings, and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within forty-five days from the passing of the order.
(2) No order shall be reviewed except on the following grounds, namely:-
(a) discovery of new or important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made.
(b) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(c) any other sufficient reason.
(3) For the purposes of this section the Collector shall be deemed to be the successor in office of any Revenue Officer who has left the district or who has ceased to exercise powers as a Revenue Officer and to whom 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.5961/2021 (Pradeep Soni and Anr. vs. State of M.P.) there is no successor in the district.
(4) An order which has been dealt with in appeal or on revision shall not be reviewed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the appellate or revisional Authority."
Thus, from the perusal of the Section 51 it is apparently clear that the Board of Revenue is having powers to take up the matter and if deems it fit can grant permission for review of the order. Thereafter, the order which is proposed to be reviewed or reversed the notice is required to be issued to the effected party and without hearing the effected party, no orders can be reversed. In the present case, the learned Board of Revenue while setting aside the orders passed by the SDO and Additional Commissioner have taken up the matter on its own and has granted permission for review of the order. It is further observed in the order that prior to reviewing the order the notice to the effected party be given. In such circumstances, no illegality is said to have been committed by the learned Board of Revenue in providing permission for review of the order. The learned Board of Revenue is having ample powers under Section 51 of MPLRC to take up the matter even in suo motu proceedings. As required under Section 51 the written permission is also being granted by the order passed by the Board of Revenue for review of the order. In such circumstances, no illegality is said to have been committed by the learned Board of Revenue. The order is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the writ petition.
The petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2021.08.17 14:35:06
-07'00'