2008 Supreme(SC) 1593

2008(7) Supreme 356
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Lokeshwar Singh Panta and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
M.P. Housing Board — Appellant
versus
Shiv Shankar Mandil & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3840-3841 of 2001
Decided on : 24-10-08

IMPORTANT POINT
Power of Collector to review his own order under Section 51of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 being a review power such review power has to be exercised within a reasonable time.

Headnote:Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 – Section 51 – Application by respondent for allotment of land for establishing his small scale industry manufacturing steel furniture – Application by General Manager, District Industries Centre, Morena for transfer of suit land recorded as “Charnoi Extra Nazul” in favour of respondents – Allotment of land to respondent on transfer of land by Collector – Objection thereagainst by Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, on ground that said Survey Number was in middle of a residential plan of Board – Order passed by Collector, directing respondents to maintain status quo and not to construct on allotted land – Writ Petition thereagainst by respondents – Order passed by Board of Revenue of Madhya Pradesh during pendency of said Writ Petition permitting Collector to review his own order – Challenged by respondents by filing another Writ Petition – Writ petitions allowed by Single Judge, holding that order passed by Collector, restraining respondents to construct in the leased plot was wholly incorrect and that Collector having already granted permission could not have decided to review that order so as to put the clock back – Letter Patent Appeals – Dismissed – Appeals thereagainst – Contention of appellants that this being a Nistar land, could not have been diverted by Collector – However no such bar was seen – Barring one revenue entry, State Government had not produced any evidence to show that this particular piece of land was set apart for pasture or for fodder reserve – Hence no reason to hold that Sections 235-237 were applicable – Even if it was held that said land was a grazing land and was treated as such before its being diverted by Collector for commercial purpose, merely by cancelling said diversion, subsequent validly created Lease Deed could not be said at naught – Power of Collector to review his own order under Section 51of Code being a review power such review power would have to be exercised within a reasonable time – However in this case, three years of time, without any explanation, could not be viewed as a reasonable time in view of fact that petitioner had obtained possession, paid premium, spent money for obtaining Registered Sale Deed and had also made initial expenditure for preparing land for raising structures – The said Government could not have allowed petitioner to do all these things and then chosen to review its own powers – That apart, even if the earlier order was reviewed, it could not be set at naught Lease Deed which was validly created – No interference called for with impugned judgments of Courts below – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 12 to 15)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. An Application was filed by respondent herein in the instant case for allotment of land for establishing his small scale industry manufacturing steel furniture. On Application by General Manager, District Industries Centre, Morena for transfer of suit land recorded as “Charnoi Extra Nazul” in favour of respondents land was allotted to respondent on transfer of land by Collector. Objections were filed thereagainst by Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, on ground that said Survey Number was in middle of a residential plan of Board. Order was passed by Collector, directing respondents to maintain status quo and not to construct on allotted land. Writ Petition thereagainst was filed by respondents. Order was passed by Board of Revenue of Madhya Pradesh during pendency of said Writ Petition permitting Collector to review his own order. Said order was Challenged by respondents by filing another Writ Petition.Writ petitions were allowed by Single Judge, holding that order passed by Collector, restraining respondents to construct in the leased plot was wholly incorrect and that Collector having already granted permission could not have decided to review that order so as to put the clock back. Letter Patent Appeals thereagainst were dismissed.

        2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Barring one revenue entry, State Government had not produced any evidence to show that this particular piece of land was set apart for pasture or for fodder reserve. Hence no reason to hold that Sections 235-237 were applicable . Even if it was held that said land was a grazing land and was treated as such before its being diverted by Collector for commercial purpose, merely by cancelling said diversion, subsequent validly created Lease Deed could not be said at naught. Power of Collector to review his own order under Section 51of Code being a review power such review power would have to be exercised within a reasonable time. However in this case, three years of time, without any explanation, could not be viewed as a reasonable time in view of fact that petitioner had obtained possession, paid premium, spent money for obtaining Registered Sale Deed and had also made initial expenditure for preparing land for raising structures. The said Government could not have allowed petitioner to do all these things and then chosen to review its own powers. That apart, even if the earlier order was reviewed, it could not set at naught Lease Deed which was validly created. No interference was called for with impugned judgments of Courts below.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.