Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(vi)Pursuant to the order-dated 28.04.2002, Shri Umesh Tripathi, Advocate, filed another application, under Section 178 of the MPLRC, for getting the name of Augustin Pastala recorded as co-sharer in the land. Thereupon, while accepting the partition under Section 178-A of the MPLRC as genuine transaction, petitioner Vivek Tripathi, by way of order-dated 21.05.2002, granted the relief as prayed for by directing :: 5 ::
W.P. Nos.5959/2008 & 2571/2011and MCrC No.4261/2010 recording of names of Indira Pastala and Augustin Pastala as Bhumiswamis of the land.
W.P. Nos.5959/2008 & 2571/2011and MCrC No.4261/2010 under Section 51 of the MPLRC to review the corresponding order passed by him on 21.05.2002 and immediately after receiving the sanction, he had proceeded to set aside the same by way of order dated 15.07.2002.
(ii) The proceedings initiated by him for partition of the land were in accordance with the provisions of Section 178-A of the MPLRC.
(iii) Complainant John Bosco Richardson is a person against whom the petitioner had lodged an FIR and the other complainant Lalsingh Baghel is the Patwari under suspension against whom action was taken at the instance of petitioner only. Allegation made by them, in substance, is that he had made false entries in the revenue records in favour of Smt. Indira Pastala and her husband. But, considering his reply, Inspector Rajwardhan Maheshwari, who conducted the inquiry, proposed only departmental action against the petitioner. However, in the supplementary inquiry, another Inspector namely Deo Vrat Mishra, without giving any opportunity to explain his conduct, expressed a contrary opinion recommending registration of a case under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act against him ignoring the well settled legal position, as explained by a Division Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Srinivas Sharma (2005 (2) MPLJ 155), that a mere mistake committed in passing a quasi-judicial order does not make out an offence of misconduct.
W.P. Nos.5959/2008 & 2571/2011and MCrC No.4261/2010 had entertained an application under Section 113 of the MPLRC despite the fact that such an application could be entertained by Sub-Divisional Officer only. In other words, it was not her official or judicial duty to entertain the application under Section 113 thereof.

12. Learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that in-fact, she had not acted under Section 113 of the MPLRC that relates to correction of clerical errors and any errors made in the record-of- rights, but had proceeded under Section 115 of the MPLRC, which empowers the Tahsildar to correct any wrong entry in Khasra. Placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Muniyalla AIR 1985 SC 470, he has argued that mentioning of a wrong section would not invalidate an order, which is otherwise within power of the authority making it. He is further of the view that if the exercise of a power can be traced to a legitimate source, the fact that the same was purported to have been exercised under a different power does not vitiate the exercise of a power in question. For this, we have been reminded of the principle of law, as laid down by the Apex Court in P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 232 and reiterated in Afzal Ullah v. State of U.P. AIR 1964 SC 264, J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1173 and Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1977 SC 1323.

20. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously contended that none of the Inspectors, who had the occasion to make enquiry into the complaints, were able to collect even an iota of evidence to indicate criminal intent on his part. Attention has also been invited to the fact that refusal to exercise power conferred by Section 51 of the MPLRC to review the order-dated 21.05.2002 would have resulted in much serious consequences including loss of revenue to the State exchequer.

21. In response, learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that petitioner Alok Kumar Shrivastava ought to have refused to exercise the power to review, saying that (i) the order-dated 21.05.2002 was without jurisdiction as the powers under Section 113 of the MPLRC could only be exercised by a Sub-Divisional Officer and also that (ii) the powers, under Section 178 of the MPLRC, which could be exercised by Tahsildar only, were wrongly usurped by petitioner Vivek Tripathi. He has further pointed out that by virtue of the order-dated 16.05.2008 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in Meena Mehra's case (W.P.No.5959/08), the matter could not be investigated till 03.01.2011. Reference has also been made to the observations made in Deo Vrat Mishra's case (above) that absence of direct evidence as regards particular accused relating to conspiracy is without significance as, being secretly planned, it can be proved by circumstantial evidence.