S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Govt. Advocate representing the appellant/state.

( 2 ) PERUSED the Record.

( 3 ) THE dispute in the present case relates to the title in respect of certain agricultural holdings. The respondent in this appeal had filed a suit seeking a declaration that he was the owner in possession of the aforesaid agricultural holdings and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants including the State of M. P. through the Collector, and the Tahsildar, Gwalior from either dispossessing him from the land in dispute or interfering in his possession thereof.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid suit was contested by the defendants denying the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. They had also asserted that the Patta claimed to have been granted in favour of the plaintiff, dated 20-4-1947, was farzi. The trial Court had decreed the suit. The decree was affirmed in appeal. Thereafter, the State of M. P. , and the other defendant the Tahsildar, filed a Second Appeal No. 487/1998, which was disposed of vide the judgment and order dt. 25-1-1999, whereunder, it was dismissed.

( 5 ) A perusal of the aforesaid judgment dismissing the second appeal, indicates that Tahsildar, Gwalior had held an enquiry and disposed of the case vide his judgment and order dated 4-5-1973. After examining the voluminous evidence led before him, the Tahsildar had come to the conclusion that the land in dispute could be leased out and in fact, the Patta had been granted in favour of plaintiff after following the prescribed procedure. It was also found that the rental required to be paid by the plaintiff Patta-holder was also duly deposited by him with the State. It was also found that the plaintiff was continuing to be in possession of the land in dispute pursuant to the patta executed in his favour. The aforesaid order dated. 4-5-1973 had attained finality.

( 6 ) IT is not disputed that feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the State had challenged the same before Hon. the Supreme Court but the petition for special leave to appeal (Civil No. 11776/99) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18-11-99.

( 7 ) IT was thereafter, that the Collector taking suo motu action purporting to exercise the jurisdiction envisaged under S. 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, had registered a revision against the order dated 4-5-1971, passed by Tahsildar in the mutation proceeding. This action had been taken as noticed by the learned single Judge in the impugned order after a period of 28 years.

( 8 ) IN the aforesaid revision, the Collector while allowing the same, had set aside the order dt. 4-5-1971 passed by Tahsildar and had directed him to reregister the proceeding under Ss. 115 and 116 of M. P. Land Revenue Code which provides for correction of a wrong entry in Khasra and any other land record by superior officers and after examining the legality of the Patta, dispose of the case, in accordance with law within a period of three months.

( 9 ) IT was the aforesaid order, passed by the Collector, which was challenged by respondent No. 1, by means of writ petition, which had been allowed by a learned single Judge with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/-, which was made recoverable from the State, providing however, that if deemed fit the said amount may be recovered from the Collector, Gwalior as the order passed by him was in colourable exercise of powers contrary to the settled principles of law.

( 10 ) IN the impugned order, the learned single Judge, has observed that the Collector, had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the order passed by the Civil Court which had even been approved by the Hon. Supreme Court and direct further enquiry in regard to the validity of the lease, which question had been settled up to the stage of Hon. Supreme Court.

( 11 ) IT may be noticed at this stage that as has already been indicated hereinabove, the question in regard to the validity of the lease and the same having been ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document