Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and R. J. Bhave, J.
DOLUMAL SUNDERDAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 358 Of 1966
Decided On : 07/13/1967
If no application is made by the Co-operative Societies of landless persons or by the landless persons, the Government land can be allotted by auction. If the method of auction is not resorted to, in that case the Collector can allot the land to any person by a private treaty only with the approval of the Commissioner. [Para 4
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) - S. 162 - repeal of - effect - no power to allot land remains - the fact that application was pending at the time of repeal - does not change the position - General Clauses Act, 1957 (M. P.) - S. 10.
Except as to transactions past and closed, a statute after its repeal is as completely obliterated as if it had never been enacted. The result is that all the proceedings pending at the time of the repeal must be rendered ineffective unless the repealing statute provides otherwise. Section 10 of the M.P. General Clauses Act, however provides an exception that even when the repealing statute is silent, all the rights acquired and all the liabilities incurred, can be worked out as if the statute was not repealed. But it must be noted that what is unaffected by the repeal of a statute is a right acquired or accrued under it and not a mere 'hope or expectation or', or liberty to apply for, acquiring a right. (1961) 2 All. E.R. 721, AIR 1963 SC 334 & (1895) AC 240 relied on.
The mere right existing at the date of a repealing statute to take advantage of provisions of the statute is not a right accrued and that the Collector lost all rights of granting applications pending before him on the date of the repeal of section 162 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. [Para 5
( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order dated 28th July 1965 passed by the commissioner, Raipur, and the order of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, passed on 16th February 1966 upholding the Commissioner's order.
( 2 ) THE petitioner had applied for allotment of Khasra Nos. 52 and 54 in mouza purena under Section 162 (as it stood then) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue code, 1959. The Additional Collector, Raipur, after inviting objections, allotted the land to the petitioner by order dated 17th October 1963 and directed that the nistar Patrak be accordingly modified. In pursuance of the said order a patta was also granted to the petitioner.
( 3 ) THE Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, however, set aside the order of the additional Collector in exercise of suo motu revisional powers on the ground that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to allot the land under Section 162 (1)of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. In appeal the Board of Revenue also came to the same conclusion. The Board of Revenue was of the view that under Section 162 (1) the competent officer to allot the land was the Tahsildar and not the collector. The petitioner's prayer for regularising the proceedings and for remitting the case to the Tahsildar was also rejected.
( 4 ) SHRI Padhye, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue were in error in holding that the Tahsildar alone could allot the land and not the Collector or the Additional Collector. He referred to section 162 (as it stood then) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and pointed out that the provisions of that section specifically authorised the Collector to dispose of Government land subject to the rules made by the State Government. He urged that when Rule 7 framed under Section 162 authorised certain revenue officers to dispose of certain lands, it had not the effect of taking away the jurisdiction of the Collector conferred under Section 162 of allotting Government lands and that the revenue authorities were in error in holding that the Additional collector had no jurisdiction to allot the land. We need not decide this question, in this petition, as we are satisfied that the allotment of the land to the petitioner by the Additional Collector was without jurisdiction for other reasons. Rule 2 framed under Section 162 provides that the land belonging to the State Government should be allotted to the Co-operative Societies of landless persons or landless persons of such village in the order of priority indicated under that rule. Rule 3 provides that if after allotment of land of any particular village to the Co-operative societies of landless persons and the landless persons, more land is available for allotment, it may be allotted to the Cooperative Societies of landless persons and the landless persons of the neighbouring villages in the order of priority mentioned in Rule 2. Rule 4 thereafter provides that if no Co-operative Society of landless persons or landless persons are forthcoming to take up any land in any village, the land may be allotted to a Co-operative Society of other persons, if any; and if no cooperative Societies are forthcoming to take up land, the land may be disposed of by auction. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 further provides that if any land is not disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (1), the Collector may, with the approval of the Commissioner, allot such land to such person as he may deem fit. It would thus appear that if no application is made by the Co-operative societies of landless persons or by the landless persons, the Government land can be allotted by auction. If the method of auction is not resorted to, in that case the collector can allot the land to any person by a private treaty only with the approval of the Commissioner. Neither was any auction held in this case; nor was any pr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
