Important PointThe power under Section 109 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, can only be exercised by the authority in respect of any person lawfully acquiring a right and such application shall also be filed within six months from the date of such acquisition.

Headnote:Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959—Sections 50, 57(2), 104, 108, 109, 114, 116, 117 and 248—Bhopal Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1953—Sections 4, 5, 6(1) & (2), 17, 27—Eviction proceedings against appellants—Land in dispute was recorded in the name of jail department since 1935 till 1989, when appellants filed an application u/s 109 of the Code for mutation—Disputed land measuring 59.17 acres was developed as a garden having trees of Mangoes, Jamun, Lemon etc.—It was used to be let out to different contractors—Property was managed from the income received from fruits grown in the garden—Predecessor of appellants obtained a deed of relinquishment in his favour from lessees—This was done without the concurrence and consent of Government—Predecessor of appellants submitted an application in August 1960 to the Government for recording his name as a Bhumiswami—Application filed by appellants rejected on ground that the land in question was recorded in the name of jail department—Proceeding u/s 248 of the Code was initiated for eviction of appellants in 1981 alleging that appellants were trespassers—Order of eviction passed by Tahsildar which was confirmed—Appellants filed application u/s 57(2) of the Code praying to declare Bhumiswami rights in their favour—Appellant’s application for mutation before Naib Tahsildar was allowed—On suo motu proceedings, Naib Tahsildar was held guilty of ordering mutation improperly—Appellants were suppressing the facts at every stage of proceeding—Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
       Held : In the present case Khasra Nos. were entered in the name of jail department since from 1935 and if the appellants were aggrieved they could have raised the dispute under Section 116 to the Tahsildar for its correction within one year from the date of such entry. As already noted Section 117 raises a presumption as to entries in land records being correct until the contrary is proved. Having not availed the aforesaid provisions of Law, the only remedy that was open to the appellants was under Section 57(2)(3). Section 57 Chapter VI of the Code deals with the land and land revenue. It provides that all lands belong to the State Government, and all such lands including standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not, and all rights in the sub-soil of any land are the property of the State Government. Proviso to Section 57 provides that the Section shall not affect any rights of any person subsisting at the coming into force of this Code in any such property. Sub-section 2 of Section 57 provides that if any dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under sub-section (1) such dispute shall be decided by the Sub-divisional Officer. Further, sub-section 3 provides that if any person is aggrieved by any order passed by the SDO under sub-section 2 he may file a civil suit to contest the validity of the order within a period of one year from the date of such order. (Paras 28 and 29)
       As already noted on application being filed by the appellants in 1989, the Tahsildar by ex-parte order dated 29.1.1990 ordered the land in question to be mutated in the name of the appellants. The Tahsildar in his order also noticed that the name of the jail department is mentioned in the land records. However, the order was passed ex-parte on the ground that despite several letters sent to the jail department none appeared on its behalf. We have already noted that the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar dated 29.1.1990 was an abuse of the process of law. The said order was set-aside by the Appellate Authority, in our view, rightly by a detailed order passed on 24.6.1996. Aggrieved thereby a revision under Section 50 of the Code was preferred before the Board of Revenue. (Para 30)
       On a cursory reading of Section 50 it postulates that the Board of Revenue would exercise revisional powers if the revenue officer subordinate to it, appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the Board of Revenue erroneously called for the report again by directing a roving enquiry. As was pointed out by the High Court, the Board of Revenue exercised revisional powers which is patently erroneous, contrary to law and it transgressed its revisional jurisdiction by calling report from the Tahsildar despite the impeccable facts available on the record. Thus, the High Court was justified in setting aside the said order. (Para 30)

Judgment

H.K. Sema, J.—Leave granted.

2. The facts of this case revolves as to how the appellants clandestinely and by suppressing the facts tried to grasp the public land measuring 59.17 acres in Khasra Nos. 943, 960, 961, 962 of Jahangirabad (Jail Bag) area of Bhopal city under the guise of order dated 2.3.1954 passed by the Jagir Commissioner in respect of land in Khasra Nos. 72/1, 73, 74, 75, 76 in village Dharampuri.

3. The facts of this case are cumbersome and may be recited briefly and strictly for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. The present disputed land measuring 59.17 acres in Khasra Nos. 943, 960, 961 and 962 was recorded in the name of jail department and situated in the area of Bhopal city near the Arera Hills in front of old jail premises since 1935. It appears that the area was developed as a garden having trees of Mangoes, Jamun, Lemon etc. and the same was used to let out to different contractors and the property was managed from the income received from the fruits grown in the garden. No revenue was assessed on that income as the land belonged to the State Government. It is not disputed that the said land was given on lease to one Shri Bhawani Singh and Shri Jameel Ahmed by the Superintendent of Jail for a consideration of Rs. 375/- per annum. Subsequently one Shri Rashiduzzafar Khan, the predecessor of the appellants, obtained a deed of relinquishment in his favour from the lessees Bhawani Singh and Jameel Ahmed. This was done without the concurrence and consent of the Government. Rashiduzzafar Khan continued using the land in the capacity of lessee and used to pay annual rent at the rate of Rs. 375/-.

4. Rashiduzzafar Khan, predecessor of the appellants submitted an application in August, 1960 to the Government for recording his name as a Bhumiswami in respect of the said land in Khasra Nos. 943, 960, 961 and 962. The same was, however, rejected by an order-dated 5.8.1962. Another application filed by the appellants herein was rejected on 29th/30th January, 1965 on the ground that the land in question was recorded in the name of jail department.

5. Thereafter, a proceeding under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) was initiated for eviction of the appellants in 1981. It was held that the appellants were the trespassers and order of eviction was passed by the Tahsildar on 16.9.1981. The Tashildar’s order was challenged before the SDO which was dismissed on 19.3.1985. SDO’s order was challenged before the Commissioner in second appeal and the same was dismissed by the Commissioner on 29.6.1989. The order of the Commissioner was challenged by filing M.P. No. 3978 of 1991, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.4.1998. Thereafter, the Commissioner’s order was assailed before the Revenue Minister and he directed an enquiry in the matter and the said order was set-aside by the Government by its order dated 1.11.1991 on the ground that the Revenue Minister had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. This would show that the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar on 16.9.1981 attained its finality.

6. Another attempt was made by the appellants by filing application under Section 57(2) of the Code on 14.11.1983 praying inter alia to declare Bhumiswami rights in their favour. The said application was filed before the SDO, Bhopal, on the basis of the registered deed dated 6.4.1940 executed by Bhawani Singh and Jameel Ahmed. This application was, however, not pursued by the appellants.

7. Thereafter, the appellants filed civil suit No. 159-A/84 in the Court of District Judge, Bhopal. In the said suit the State Government filed the written statement. The said suit was dismissed on withdrawal on 1.7.1998.

8. Thereafter, the appellants filed an application for mutation before the Naib Tahsildar in 1989. The said application was allowed by the Tahsildar on 29.1.1990. Suo Motu proceedings were drawn by the Collector, Bhopal on 3.8.1990. An enquiry was ordered a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2006 Supreme(SC) 142

Important PointThe power under Section 109 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, can only be exercised by the authority in respect of any person lawfully acquiring a right and such application shall also be filed within six months from the date of such acquisition.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis