Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naseerulla vs State Of M.P. on 8 April, 2022
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.6131/2010 (Naseerulla Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Gwalior, Dated : 8.4.2022
Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
(1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been filed against the orders dated 01/12/2001, the order for sanction for review passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj and the appellate order dated 15/04/2008, passed by Additional Collector, Sironj, challenging the order of review, whereby a revision preferred against the order of review, treating it to be an Appeal, had been dismissed, holding the order of review to be good. (2) Brief facts of the case are that vide order dated 06/09/1999 a settlement of land bearing Survey No.168 situated at Gram Setpura was ordered in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of occupation and continuous possession over that land. Against the said order, an Appeal was preferred by one Anish Khan which was registered as Appeal No.127/appeal/2000-2001. Vide order dated 25/10/2001 the said appeal was dismissed as time barred. On 27/11/2001, Naib Tehsildar, Division-3, Sironj, sought permission for review of the order dated 06/09/1999 passed in Case No.16-A/19 (4) 98-99, by which settlement was ordered in favour of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, exercising the powers under section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, passed the order of review. Aggrieved a revision was preferred by the present petitioner, which was converted in Appeal and vide order dated 15/04/2008 the said appeal was dismissed. Hence the present petition.
(3) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the order of review is totally against the principles of natural justice and dehors the provisions of Section 51 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. Section 51 of M.P. Land Revenue Code provides that any Revenue 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.6131/2010 (Naseerulla Vs. State of M.P. and others) Officer can review his decision suo moto or on an application of any party interested. He further argues that the sanction for review by board or any other Revenue Officer cannot be granted without notice and hearing the other side. He placed reliance on section 51 (1) Proviso (ii) of MPLRC and in the case of Shaheed Anwar Vs. Board of Revenue, reported in 2000 RN 76.
(4) Learned Government Advocate while supporting the impugned order contended that since there was irregularity and illegality while settling the land in favour of the petitioner, the order sanctioning review is justified and cannot be interfered with. (5) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. (6) The order dated 01/12/2001, which is an order for sanction of the review, reflects that no notice as required under section 51 (1) proviso (ii) of MPLRC was issued to the petitioner, whose substantial rights were getting to be affected.
(7) As per sub-section (1), the Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its/his own motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed by itself/himself. Proviso (ii) provides that 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. As per this section, the Board or every Revenue Officer has power of suo moto review the order. However, as per the proviso (ii), the order shall not be varied or reversed unless notice has been served on the interested party. In the present case, from the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, it reveals that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. (8) The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shaheed Anwar 2000 RN 76 in para-5 and 6 has held as under:
"5. We find some substance in the plea. Even if it was assumed that the power of review was 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.6131/2010 (Naseerulla Vs. State of M.P. and others) available in the given case still appellant deserves to be put on notice and afforded an opportunity of being heard. Because no order affecting his interest and reopening the exchange deal concluded years back could be passed at his back and without affording him opportunity of being heard. Moreover it would be innocuous to provide him such opportunity in the given facts and circumstances of the case which would cause prejudice to none, least of all to the interests of the State.
6. This appeal is accordingly allowed and writ Court order dated 07/10/98 passed in W.P. No.920/98 is quashed. W.P. No.926/98 shall revive."
(9) As per this section, sanction for review by Board or any other Revenue Officer cannot be granted without notice and hearing the other side.
(10) A juxtapose reading of the matter of Shaheed Anwar (supra) and section 51 (1) Proviso (ii) of MPLRC, would spell out that review for sanction cannot be granted without affording an opportunity of hearing to the other side and the review cannot be granted mechanically. The scheme of section 51 of MPLRC and the principle of natural justice if are taken up together they will make it clear that opportunity of hearing is to be granted to the other side so that he may convince the sanctioning authority that the case on hands is not worth grant of sanction for review. He can also convince the authority that because of lapse of time the authority should not now exercise the powers of review or grant the sanction. The other side can well convince the authority that the case on hands is not such where absolute illegality has been committed and possibility of the other view would not justify grant of sanction for review. Undisputedly in the present matter the above principle had not been observed. Thus, in light of aforesaid provisions, respondents ought to have given 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.6131/2010 (Naseerulla Vs. State of M.P. and others) opportunity of hearing before reviewing the order. (11) Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and the orders dated 01/12/2001 and 15/04/2008 are set aside.
E-copy/Certified copy as rules/directions.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke) Judge Pawar* ASHISH PAWAR 2022.04.12 17:19:22 +05'30'