Kamla Singh vs Alka Singh - 2010 Supreme(MP) 797

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(MP) 797

2011 jk fu 273 2011 RN 273
¼mPp U;k;ky;½ (HIGH COURT)
U;k- d`".k dqekj ykgksVh rFkk U;k- Jherh lq"kek JhokLro
Krishna Kumar Lahoti and Smt. Sushma Shrivastava, JJ.
deyk flag ¼Jherh½ fo- Jherh vydk flag rFkk vU;
Kamla Singh (Smt.)
v.
Smt. Alka Singh and others
fjV vihy dz- 730 lu~ 2010( ¼tcyiqj½( ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk fjV ;kfpdk dz- 12435 lu~ 2005 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds fo:)( fu.khZr fnukad 27-10-2010A
Writ Appeal No. 730 of 2010 (Jabalpur); against order passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12435 of 2005;
Decided on: 27.10.2010

‘khy ukxw vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls( ef.kdkar ‘kekZ izR;FkhZ dz- 1 dh vksj ls( ohjsUnz oekZ izR;FkhZ dz- 6 rFkk 7 dh vksj lsA
Advocates Appeared:
Sheel Nagu for appellant; Manikant Sharma for respondent No.1; Naman Nagrath, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.3; Virendra Verma for respondents No.6 and 7.

Headnote:¼1½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 2 & vihy dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk & lafo/kku ds vuq- 227 ds v/khu v/kh{k.k ‘kfDr;k¡ iz;qDr & lafo/kku ds vuq- 226 ds v/khu mRisz"k.k fjV tkjh djus dh vf/kdkfjrk dk vkg~oku ugha fd;k x;k & vihy pykus ;ksX; ugha & fjV vihy esa gLr{ksi visf{kr ughaA ¼iSjk 9½
       ¼2½ uSlfxZd U;k; && fdlh izdkj dk vkns‘k ikfjr djus ls iwoZ fgrc) O;fDr dks dksbZ lwpuki= tkjh ugha fd;k x;k & uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar dk mYya?ku fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 9½
       ¼3½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 49 ¼3½ rFkk 50 & ekeys dk izfrizs"k.k & dc mfpr ugha & lwpuk fn, fcuk Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, vkns‘k ikfjr & ,slh ‘kfDr;k¡ vusd o"kZ O;rhr gksus ds i‘pkr~ iz;qDr ugha dh tk ldrh & lwpuk i= tkjh djus ds i‘pkr~ ekeyk u;s fljs ls fofu‘p;u ds fy, izfrizs"k.k dh vko‘;drk ughaA ¼iSjk 10] 11] 14 rFkk 15½
       ¼4½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 50 & Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr;k¡ & vusd o"kZ O;rhr gksus ds i‘pkr~ iz;qDr ugha dh tk ldrh & ,slh ‘kfDr;k¡ dqN ekl ds Hkhrj gh iz;qDr dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 1297 vuqlfjrA 1990 jk fu 77 ¼mPp U;k- & iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk 2001 jk fu ¼mPp U;k-½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 10] 11 rFkk 12½
       ¼5½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 50 ¼1½] ijarqd ¼rhu½ & Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k & fgrc) O;fDr dks lwpuk rFkk lquokbZ dk volj iznku fd, fcuk & vkns‘k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 12½
       ¼6½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 2 & vihy dk vf/kdkj & O;fDr dk;Zokfg;ksa esa i{kdkj ugha & mls vihy izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA 1975 ts ,y ts 155 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 13½
       ¼7½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 115 rFkk 116 & jktLo vfHkys[k esa izfof"V & ‘kq) djus dh ‘kfDr & rglhynkj esa fufgr & ‘kq) djus ds fy, rglhynkj us ‘kfDr iz;qDr ugha dh & izfof"V;k¡ ‘kq) djus ds fy, ifjlhek & ,d o"kZ dh dkykof/k fofgr gSA ¼iSjk 14½

       (1) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M.P.) -- S. 2 --maintainability of appeal -- powers of superintendence exercised under Art. 227 of Constitution -- jurisdiction under Art. 226 of Constitution for issuance of writ of certiorari not invoked -- appeal not maintainable -- no interference called for in writ appeal. [Para9]
       (2) Natural Justice -- no notice issued to interested person before passing any order -- principle of natural justice violated. [Para 9]
       (3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 49 (3) and 50 -- remand of case -- when not proper -- order passed without notice by exercising of suo motu revisional powers -- such powers cannot be exercised after lapse of several years -- need not to remand matter for deciding afresh after issuance of notice. [Para 10, 11, 14 and 15]
       (4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 50 -- suo motu revisional powers -- cannot be exercised after lapse of several years -- such powers can be exercised within a few months. AIR 1969 SC 1297 followed. 1990 RN 77 (HC-FB) and 2001 RN 402 (HC) relied on. [Paras 10,11, and 12]
       (5) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S.50(1), Proviso (iii) -- suo motu revison -- without notice and providing hearing opportunity to interested person -- order cannot be passed. [Para 12]
       (6) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M.P.) -- S.2 -- right to appeal not a party in proceeding -- he has no locus standi to file appeal. 1975 JLJ 155 relied on. [Para 13]
       (7) Land Revenue code, 1959, (M.P.) -- Ss. 155 and 116 -- entries in revenue record -- power of correction -- vested with Tahsildar -- Tahsildar not exercised power for correction -- limitation for correction of entries -- period of one year is prescribed. [Para 14]

ORDER

1. This writ appeal is directed under section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the order dated 27.2.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12435/05.

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent raised following preliminary objections:-

(i) That, before the Writ Court appellant herein Smt. Kamla Singh was not a party, so she has no locus standi to file this writ appeal.

(ii) Respondent No, 4 to 7 were not party before the Writ Court, so that they have been wrongly arrayed as respondents and the appellant be directed to delete the names of the these respondents.

(iii) That Writ Petition No. 12435/05 was decided by the Single Bench exercising the power under Article 227 of Constitution of India against which no writ appeal lies, hence this writ appeal may he dismissed.

(iv) It is also submitted that in Writ Petition No. 12435/05, order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 29.12.2004 was assailed by the State. The dispute was between State of M.P. and respondent No. 1 Alka Singh. The appellant herein has no concern with the aforesaid land and even if the order is not passed in favour of Smt. Alka Singh, the appellant will not get the land and in case, aforesaid order is affirmed, Smt. Alka Singh is entitled to remain recorded as Bhumiswami. So the appellant who was not party to the proceeding even before the Revenue, Court has no locus to file this writ appeal.

(v) That the State has not preferred any writ appeal against the impugned order and the order has attained finality between the parties.

3. Shri Sheel Nagu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an effected party. The land which is involved in this case was the subject-matter of allotment of a retail outlet. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Alka Singh on the basis of such land sought allotment of a retail outlet. The appellant raised some objections before the Grievance Redressal Forum of Indian Oil Corporation. As no cognizance was taken in respect of the said objections, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No. 3686/04 and in the said petition, directions were issued to the Grievance Redressal Forum of the Indian Oil Corporation to decide the objections of the appellants. In compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 30.11.2004 in W.P.No. 3686/04, the Grievance Redressal Forum sustained objections and recommended for the cancellation of the allotment in favour of respondents No.4 and 5. However, subsequently the Indian Oil Corporation kept the matter in abeyance till the matter is decided by the High Court.

It is also submitted by Shri Nagu that the Collector, Chhatarpur detected fraud played by the predecessor of the respondents No.4 & 5. The land was earlier recorded in the name of the State and without any order of the competent authority, land was recorded in the name of Baldev and subsequently to his successors. The Collector after recording such finding rightly directed for correction of entry in the revenue record. Even if the Board of Revenue and Single Bench of this Court were of the opinion that such an order has been passed without issuing a show-cause notice to respondent No. 1 then matter ought to have been remanded back, but the Board of Revenue and the Single Bench erred in setting aside the order of the Collector.

4. Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 reiterated his contentions as stated hereinabove. It is also submitted by him that as the appellant was not party to the proceedings, she has no right to challenge the order passed by the Single Bench. Only the State Government was entitled to assail the order passed by the Single Bench in a writ appeal. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance to a judgment of this Court in Devi Prasad v. Kekse, 1975 JLJ 155 = 1975 MPLJ 689. That the entries in the revenue record were recorded much before coming

Click Here to Read the rest of this document