Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivraj Bahadur vs Collector on 8 March, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ON THE 08th OF MARCH, 2022
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 2094 of 2019
Between:-
SHIVRAJ BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI
RAJENDRA BAHADUR, AGED ABOUT 73
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O
VILLAGE NAUDHIYA, TEHSIL GOPAD BA-
NAS, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VINAY SINGH BAGHEL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. COLLECTOR SIDHI, DISTRICT SIDHI (M.P.)
2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SIDHI DISTRICT
SIDHI (M.P.)
3. TEHSILDAR SIDHI, DISTRICT SIDHI (M.P.)
4. BRIGENDRANATH SINGH S/O INDRABHAN
SINGH.
5. VISHNUBAHADUR SINGH S/O INDRABHAN
SINGH.
6. KAILASH NATH SINGH S/O INDRABHAN
SINGH.
7. KAMLESH PRATAP SINGH S/O INDRABHAN
SINGH.
2
8. LALBAHADUR SINGH S/O INDRABHAN
SINGH.
9. SAILESH PRATAP SINGH S/O DHRUVKISOR
SINGH.
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 9 R/O VILLAGE
PATAUHA, TEHSIL CHURHAT, DISTRICT
SIDHI (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI YASH SONI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE,
SHRI NEETESH KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for final disposal at motion hearing stage this
day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has called in question orders dated 28.01.2019 (P-7), 27.06.2018 (P-5), 11.08.2017 (P-3) and 25.04.2015 (P-2).
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent nos. 4 to 9 filed an appli- cation under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short "MPLRC, 1959") before the concerned Tehsildar for correction of land record. The record shows when that the matter was taken up for consid- eration before the Lok Adalat on 25.04.2015, the concerned Tehsildar has passed the order directing for appropriate correction as was prayed for by the respondent nos. 4 to 9. Against the order dated 25.04.2015(Annexure-P/2), the petitioner filed review application before the concerned Tehsildar who vide order dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure-P/3) rejected the said application 3 stating therein that since the order was passed in Lok Adalat, therefore no re- vision is maintainable. The order dated 11.08.2017 was challenged by the petitioner under Section 44(1) of MPLRC before the respondent no.2/ Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 27.06.2018 (Annexure-P/5) dismissed the appeal stating therein that no appeal would be maintainable against the order passed in Lok Adalat.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of the SDO, the petitioner preferred a re- vision application under Section 50 of MPLRC, 1959. Vide order dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure-P/7), the Collector dismissed the revision on the ground that the revision is not maintainable against the order passed in ap- peal. Against all these orders, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the pe- rusal of application submitted by respondents before the Tehsildar for cor- rection of land record (Annexure-P/1) itself shows that the case of the re- spondents was that in the year 1998-1999, the name of Shivraj Bahadur Singh was wrongly recorded in the revenue record in connivance with the revenue officers. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that it cannot be dis- puted that in the year 1998-1999 the name of Shivraj Bahadur Singh was recorded in the revenue record and whether the same was correctly recorded or it was the result of any mischief etc. could have been determined only when the notices were served on Shivraj Bahadur Singh. He further submits that the respondents did not array the petitioner as party in the application under Section 115 of MPLRC, 1959 and therefore, the action is vitiated.
6. Aforesaid position is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the private respondent and he states that Shivraj Bahdur Singh has nothing to do 4 with the property in question. His name was wrongly recorded and therefore, it was not necessary to array him as a party in the application under Section 115 MPLRC, 1959. He submits that even otherwise also, the order was passed in the Lok Adalat and therefore, no petition would be maintainable under Article 227 of Constitution.
7. Taking into consideration aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the name of Shivraj Bahadur Singh was recorded in the revenue record in the year 1998-1999 and the same was sought to be cor- rected with the name of Vishwanath Singh. When an application under Sec- tion 115 of MPLRC, 1959 is made, it is necessary to implead all parties in- terested, as a respondent, so that, appropriate opportunity of hearing can be afforded to such party. Clause (b) of sub section 2 of Section 115 of the MPLRC, 1959 says that no order shall be passed under sub section (1) of Section 115 of MPLRC, 1959 without giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties interested. In absence of impleading Shivraj Bahadur Singh as the party in the application under Section 115 of MPLRC, 1959, the entire pro- ceedings are vitiated.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India1, following the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill and an- other Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others 2 held that the soul of the rule of "natural justice" is "fair play in action". Whether the order on application under Section 115 of the MPLRC, 1959 is passed in a Lok Adalat or otherwise, the same cannot be a reason to uphold an action which is found to be contrary to the principles of natural justice. As per the 1 (1981) 1 SCC 664 2 (1978) 1 SCC 405 5 mandate of law as discussed above, all parties interested were required to be impleaded. The name of Shivraj Bahadur Singh is sought to be deleted, therefore, he is a necessary party and without impleading and giving him an opportunity of hearing, no order could have been passed.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 25.04.2015 (Annexure-P/2) and all con- sequential orders are set aside. The respondents are given liberty to file ap- propriate application after impleading Shivraj Bahadur Singh as a party be- fore the concerned Court. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. If and when such an application is made, the competent authority is directed to decide the same expeditiously and in accordance with law.
The petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV) JUDGE Anu.
Digitally signed by ANUPRIYASHARMA CHOUBEY Date: 2022.03.15 15:57:47 +05'30'