-( 1 )- W.P.No. 2019/2002
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2002
Kailash Kumar Khandelwal
Versus
Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior
and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ravish Agrawal, senior counsel with Shri Abhishek
Singh, for petitioner.
Shri Ravendra Shukla, counsel for respondents No. 5 & 7.
Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, counsel for respondents No. 8 to 35.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESENT : Hon'ble Shri R.S. Jha, J.
ORDER
(18-11-2010)
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved
by the order dated 12-2-2002 passed by the Board of
Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior in Revision No.
1691-Ek/2001, setting aside the order dated 29-8-2001,
passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, in
Appeal No. 236/Rev/2000-2001, arising out of orders
dated 4-4-2001 and 25-4-2001 passed by the Collector.
Satna, in Case No. 33-A-19/Suo Motu Revision/94-96,.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present
petition are that one Smt. Sona Bai, widow of Shri Sarju
Sharan was granted a permanent lease of a total area of
41.82 acres comprising of Aaraji Nos. 214, 215, 256, 257,
258, 288, 290 and 292 by a deed, dated 19-4-1949. The
-(2)- W.P.No. 2019/2002
said Smt. Sona Bai executed a lease deed in favour of
one Arjun Das, father of the petitioner, in respect of
Khasra No. 292, area 5.40 acres ( This Khasra Number
was subsequently changed to 292/1 ). Subsequently,
some time in the year 1982 after death of Smt. Sona Bai
her three daughters executed about 23 sale deeds in
respect of the aforementioned 5.40 acres in the name of
various persons whose names were ultimately recorded
by the Superintendent, Land Records in the year 1986 in
the revenue records. A report in respect of the aforesaid
recording of names was made to the Collector, Satna
who, therefore, took up suo motu proceedings under the
provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Code’) and by interim order dated
30-5-1995 ordered that the names recorded by the
Patwari be deleted and the name of the State be recorded
as the owner of the aforesaid land and that all further
transactions in respect of the land in question be kept in
abeyance.
3. The aforesaid order passed by the Collector, Satna,
was assailed by Smt. Kundan Devi and others by filing a
writ petition before this Court which was registered as
W.P.No. 2253/1995 and this Court, by order dated
23-10-1997 quashed the aforesaid order on the short
ground that before passing any order, the Collector had
failed to give any show cause notice or opportunity of
hearing to the affected persons and the matter was
remanded back to the Collector with a direction to decide
the same after giving due and effective opportunity to the
petitioners to contest the case. It was further directed by
-( 3 )- W.P.No. 2019/2002
this Court that during the pendency of the proceedings
before the Collector status quo in respect of the revenue
record and possession of the land shall be maintained.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the
Collector, Satna, on 4-6-1998 issued notices to the
concerned persons, including the petitioner pursuant to
which the petitioner had filed his objections to the effect
that the petitioner being the permanent lease holder of the
land in question, no sale deeds in favour of the
purchasers could have been executed by the original
Pattedar, Smt. Sona Bai.
4. After hearing all the parties the Collector, Satna by
order dated 4-4-2001 held that consequent upon the
death of Smt. Sona Bai her daughters have acquired the
status as Bhumiswamis except in respect of Khasra No.
257 and 215 which were tanks and therefore vested in the
State under the provisions of Section 251 of the Code.
The Collector further ordered that the petitioner being the
permanent leasee of Khasra No. 292/1, area 5.40 acres,
no alienation in respect of that land or part thereof could
be made by Smt. Sona Bai or by her successors in favour
of any other person and, therefore, mutation made by the
Superintendent, Land Records was quashed and the
situation prevailing prior to the sale deed i.e. as on
20-8-1982 was restored. Subsequently, the Collector by
order dated 25-4-2001 corrected the clerical error in his
previous order dated 4-4-2001 and instead of Khasra No.
292/2, area 5.40 acres mentioned Khasra No. 292/1, area
5.40 acres.
-(4)- W.P.No. 2019/2002
5. The order of the Collector was affirmed in appeal by
the Commissioner, Rewa by order dated 28-9-2001. The
aforesaid orders passed by the Collector and
Commissioner were assailed by the respondent Abhishek
Jain and 25 others by filing a Revision Case No. 1691-
Ek/2001 which has been allowed by the Board of
Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior by the impugned
order 12-2-2002 and while quashing the orders passed by
the Collector, Satna dated 4-4-2001 and 25-4-2001 and
the order passed by the Commissioner, Rewa, dated
29-8-2001, the orders of mutation dated 21-4-2006 and
the consequent order passed by the Patwari, dated
26-4-1986 have been restored. Additionally, it has been
ordered that the parties shall maintain status quo in
respect of 3.40 acres of land of Khasra No. 292/1 which is
in possession of the petitioner.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Board
of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior the petitioner has filed this
petition alleging that the Board of Revenue has erred in
exercising the powers vested in it and has travelled
beyond its powers inasmuch as the Board of Revenue
after clearly recording a finding that the Revenue Courts
had no power to initiate suo motu proceedings after a
long time and as there was no impugned order against
which suo motu proceedings were taken up by the
authorities, the entire proceedings should have been
quashed by it instead of upholding the orders passed by
the Superintendent, Land Records, directing maintenance
of status quo in respect of Khasra No. 292/1, area 3.40
acres.
-( 5 )- W.P.No. 2019/2002
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
further submitted that the Board of Revenue has travelled
beyond its jurisdiction by entering into the question of title
or the question of succession and acquisition of the status
of Bhumi Swami of the legal representatives who were
the daughters of Smt. Sona Bai. The petitioner further
contended that the Board of Revenue on recording a
finding that the petitioner had been granted permanent
lease in respect of 5.40 acres of Khasra No. 292/1 could
not have directed maintenance of status quo in respect of
3.40 acres of land which was part of the aforesaid lease,
specifically as the validity or otherwise of the lease
granted in favour of the petitioner or the fact as to whether
the petitioner had lost any rights under the lease on
account of non-payment of rent etc. were not the subject-
matter in the proceedings before any of the authorities.
The petitioner has also stated that the Board of Revenue
in fact should have determined the petitioner’s status
keeping in mind the provisions of Rewa Land Revenue
and Tenancy Code, 1935 repealed by the M.P.Land
Revenue and Rewa Tenancy Act, 1959 which was further
repealed by M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959. In view of
the aforesaid, it is stated that the impugned order passed
by the Board of Revenue be quashed.
8. The respondents, per contra, submit that the Board
of Revenue has rightly examined the issue from all the
facts and facets and set aside the orders passed by the
Collector, Commissioner and rightly directed maintenance
of status quo in respect of 3.40 acres of land which has
been leased out to the petitioner on permanent basis
-(6)- W.P.No. 2019/2002
taking into account the fact that the petitioner has not
deposited the lease rent periodically.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and gone through the record.
10. From a perusal of the order passed by the Collector,
dated 4-4-2001, specifically, paragraph 7 thereof it is
clear that the Collector has recorded a finding to the effect
that it is not clear as to how and in what manner the
matter was initiated and taken up for suo motu revision
and that there is no order on record against which suo
motu proceedings could be taken up. There is also a
finding to the effect that even in the show cause notice
issued to the parties there is no mention of any order
against which suo motu proceedings have been taken up
which is a necessary requirement under the provisions of
Section 50 of the Code. In spite of the aforesaid aspect,
the Collector has gone on to decide the revision
proceedings. The aforesaid aspect has again been
reiterated and reaffirmed by the Board of Revenue in
paragraph 16 of the impugned order dated 12-2-2002. It
is evident from a perusal of paragraph 17 of the impugned
order that the Board of Revenue has recorded a finding to
the effect that suo motu proceedings in respect of the
matter were highly belated and no reason or valid basis
was available on record to initiate the same. It is also
clear that the Board of Revenue in spite of recording the
aforesaid findings has gone on to quash the order dated
4-4-2001 and 25-4-2001 passed by the Collector, Satna
and the order dated 29-8-2001 passed by the
Commissioner, Rewa and to restore the order passed by
-( 7 )- W.P.No. 2019/2002
the Superintendent, Land Records, dated 21-4-1986 and
has further gone on to direct maintenance of status quo in
respect of vacant land, area 3.40 acres of Survey No.
291/1.
11. From a perusal of the provisions of the Code it is
clear that the authorities can take up proceedings for suo
motu revision against any order passed by the
subordinate authorities, however, in the instant case the
Collector as well as the Board of Revenue have recorded
a finding that the suo motu proceedings initiated in the
present case were not against any order or proceeding
and that the exact cause of action leading to initiation of
proceedings was not evident nor had the parties been
informed as to the specific order against which the
proceedings had been initiated. It is also clear from
reading of paragraph 9 of the impugned order passed by
the Board of Revenue that the Board has gone into the
question of title and authority of the original Pattedar,
Smt. Sona Bai and her daughters to execute the sale
deeds and has also examined the rights of the petitioners
as a lessee although both of the aforesaid issues were
not subject-matter of the revision proceedings initiated by
the Collector or in dispute before the Board of Revenue.
In fact, the Board of Revenue itself, in paragraph 13, has
clearly observed that if there was any dispute inter se
between the parties regarding cancellation of lease or
possession of the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 292/1,
area 5.40 acres, the said dispute should be resolved by
the parties by resorting to appropriate proceedings i.e.
filing of a civil suit.
-(8)- W.P.No. 2019/2002
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the considered opinion that the Board of
Revenue has travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in it
and has exercised its powers illegally while deciding the
aforesaid issues which have to be left open to be decided
by a competent Court in appropriate proceedings initiated
by either of the parties. I am also of the considered
opinion that as the status of the petitioner or the validity of
the lease executed in favour of the petitioner were not
subject-matter of the suo motu proceedings, the orders
passed by the Collector and Commissioner to that extent
also deserve to be and are hereby set aside and the order
of the Board of Revenue to that extent is upheld. While
doing so, it is made clear that the entire issue regarding
right and title of the original owners, the validity of the
lease deeds or the permanent lease in favour of the
petitioner as well as continuation of the petitioner’s right
even subsequent to the execution of the sale deeds are
all kept open and to be decided by a competent Court, in
case, any appropriate proceedings in that respect are
taken up by either of the parties, if so advised.
13. With the aforesaid observations and to the extent
indicated above, the petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there
shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.Jha)
Judge
mct