Back
2010 jk fu 409 2010 RN 409
¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ (FULL BENCH)
U;k- Jh ,-ds- JhokLro] U;k- ,-,e- ukbZd rFkk U;k- ,l-,l- f}osnh
A.K. Shrivastava, A.M. Naik and S.S. Dwivedi, JJ.
j.kohj flag rFkk ,d vU; fo- e-iz- jkT;
Ranveer Singh and another
Vs
State of M.P.
f}rh; vihy dzekad 154 lu~ 2001 ¼Xokfy;j½( fu.khZr fnukad 30-8-2010A
Second Appeal No. 1540/2001 (Gwalior);
Decided on: 30.8.2010
¼1½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 50& e-iz- d`f"kd tksr mPpre lhek vf/kfu;e] 1960 & /kkjk 42 & iqujh{k.k izkf/kdkjh }kjk Loiszj.kk ls iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr dk iz;ksx & vkns‘k dh voS/krk ;k vukSfpR;rk rFkk dk;Zokfg;ksa dh vfu;ferrk dh tkudkjh ds fnukad ls leqfpr dkykof/k ds Hkhrj gksuk pkfg, & 180 fnol ds Hkhrj iz;qDr dh tkuk pkfg,A
U;k;ky;kr~ blesa mij dfFkr dkj.kksa ls ge ,rn~}kjk gesa fufnZ"V iz‘u dk mRrj fuEu :i ls nsrs gSa%&
lafgrk dh /kkjk 50 ds v/khu vuq/;kr iqujh{k.k izkf/kdkjh }kjk vius v/khuLFk jktLo vf/kdkjh }kjk dk;Zokfg;ksa esa dh xbZ voS/krk vukSfpR;rk rFkk vfu;ferrk dh tkudkjh ds fnukad ls 180 fnol ds Hkhrj Loiszj.kk ls iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr;ka iz;qDr dh tkuk pkfg, Hkys gh LFkkoj laifRr ljdkjh gks ;k dqN yksd fgr varoZfyr gksA viw.khZ; gkfu D;k gksuk pkfg,] bl ij izR;sd ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, D;ksafd bl fo"k; esa fuf‘pr ekunaM ugha fudkyk tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1969] ,l lh 1297] ¼2007½ 1 ,l lh lh 584] ¼2009½ 9 ,l lh lh 352] 2009 jk fu 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk 1998 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 26 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼1994½ 1 ,l lh lh 44] ¼2003½ 7 ,l lh lh 667] ts Vh 2009 ¼1½ ,l lh 104] 2006 jk fu 167] 2008 jk fu 99] 1994 jk fu 61] 2007 jk fu 236 rFkk 2002 jk fu 250 fufnZ"VA , vkb vkj 2007 ,l lh 2414 rFkk ¼1998½ 2 ,l lh lh 242 foosfprA 1990 jk fu 77] 1990 jk fu 407] 1996 jk fu 80] 1997 jk fu 219] 1999 jk fu 82] rFkk 2000 jk fu 161 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 2010 ,l lh 744 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 19] 29] 36 ,oa 38½
¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 50 & Loiszj.kk ls iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx & csdCtk djuk Lo;a gh viwj.kkh; gkfu dh dksfV esa vkrk gSA ¼iSjk 37½
¼3½ fof/kd lw= & foftys.Vhcl uksvk MksjehaVhcl T;wjk lc osuh;aV & fof/k tkx:d dh lgk;rk djrh gS mudh ugha tks vius vf/kdkjksa ds izfr lks;s jgrs gSa & iqujh{k.k izkf/kdkjh voS/krk rFkk vukSfpR;rk dh tkudkjh esa vkus ds i‘pkr~ vfuf‘pr dkykof/k ds i‘pkr~ Loiszj.kk ls iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr dk iz;ksx ugha dj ldrkA ¼iSjk 34½
U;k- ukbZd] lger
¼4½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 50 & Loiszj.kk ls iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr dk iz;ksx & 180 fnol ifjlhek dh mijh lhek gksxh & viwj.kh; gkfu mBkuss okys O;fDr dks ;g fn[kkuk gksxk fd ,slh ‘kfDr de dkykof/k esa iz;qDr dh tkuk pkfg, Fkh & tc viwj.kh; gkfu u gqbZ gks] vkns‘k@dk;Zokfg;ksa esa voS/krk] vukSfpR;rk ;k vfu;ferrk ds vfHkKku dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh dkykof/k leqfpr gksxhA
eSa vkxs ;g dg ldrk gwa fd ,slh ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djus ds fy, ;g dkykof/k mijh lhek gksxh vkSj viwj.kh; gkfu mBkus okys ‘kfDr dks ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkr;ksa ds n`f"Vdks.k ls mls ;g fn[kkus dk vf/kdkj gksxk fd ,slh ‘kfDr de dkykof/k esa iz;qDr dh tkuk pkfg, Fkh D;ksafd mls ,slh ‘kfDr ds iz;ksx ds iwoZ dh rqyuk esa viwj.kh; gkfu gqbZ gSA
rFkkfi tc ,d O;fDr ftlds fo:) Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr iz;qDr dh tk jgh gS] viwj.kh; gkfu ugha gqbZ gS] vkns‘k@dk;Zokfg;ksa esa voS/krk] vukSfpR;rk ;k vfu;ferrk ds vfHkKku dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh dkykof/k ljdkjh Hkwfe ;k yksd fgr ds laj{k.k ds fy, e-iz- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk dh /kkjk 50 ds v/khu Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k dkykof/k gksxhA , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 1623] , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 897] ¼2005½ 3 ,l lh lh 752] ¼2007½ 11 ,l lh lh 363 rFkk ¼2009½ 9 ,l lh lh 352 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 13½
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 50 -- M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 -- S. 42 -- exercise of suo motu power by revisional authority -- should be within a reasonable period from the date of knowledge of illegality or impropriety of order and irregularity of proceedings -- should be exercised with in 180 days.
Ab judicatio for the reasons stated hereinabove we hereby answer the question referred to us as under:-
The suo motu powers can be exercised by the revisional authority envisaged under section 50 of the Code within a period of 180 days from the date of the knowledge of illegality, impropriety and irregularity of the proceedings committed by any revenue officer subordinate to it even if the immovable property is Government land or having some public interest. What should be the irreparable loss, it should be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case as no definite yardstick in that regard can be drawn. AIR 1969 SC 1297, (2007) 1 SCC 584, (2009) 9 SCC 352, 2009 RN 1 (SC) and 1998 (1) MPWN 26 (SC) followed. (1994) 1 SCC 44, (2003) 7 SCC 667, JT 2009 (1) SC 104, 2006 RN 167, 2008 RN 99, 1994 RN 61, 2007 RN 236 and 2002 RN 250 referred to. AIR 2007 SC 2414 and (1998) 2 SCC 242 discussed. 1990 RN 77, 1990 RN 407, 1996 RN 80, 1997 RN 219, 1999 RN 82 and 2000 RN 161 relied on. AIR 2010 SC 744 distinguished. [Paras 19, 29, 36 & 38
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 50 - suo motu exercise of revisional power -- dispossession itself amounts to irreparable loss. [Para 37
(3) Legal Maxim -- Vigilantibus noa dormientibus jura subveniunt-laws come to the assistance of those who are vigilant and not those who sleep upon their rights -- revisional authority cannot exercise suo motu powers after indefinite period after coming to know of illegality and impropriety. [Para 34
Per Naik, J., concurring –
(4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 50 -- suo motu exercise of revisional power -- 180 days would be upper ceiling of limitation -- person suffering irreparable loss can show that such power ought to have been exercised in lesser period n when no irreparable loss is caused, period of one year from date of detection of illegality, impropriety or irregularity in order/proceedings, would be reasonable.
I may further hasten to add that this would be upper-ceiling of limitation for exercise of such powers and the person suffering an irreparable loss would be within his rights to show that such power ought to have been exercised in lesser period in view of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, causing irreparable loss prior to such exercise.
However, when a person against whom suo motu exercise of power is being made is not put to an irreparable loss, period of one year from the date of detection of illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order/proceedings would be a reasonable period for exercise of suo motu powers of revision under section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code for protection of the Government land or public interest. AIR 1996 SC 1623, AIR 1988 SC 897, (2005)3 SCC 752, (2007) 11 SCC 363 and (2009)9 SCC 352 followed. [Paras 8 & 13
Shrivastava, J. -- 1. On bare perusal of the order of reference dated 20.4.2010, we find that the learned Single Judge felt it necessary to refer the following question either to be decided by the Division Bench or Full Bench and, hence, referred the matter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Eventually, Hon'ble the Chief Justice referred the following question to answer by constituting this Full Bench. It would be germane to quote the question which has been referred to us:
"Whether in the case wherein an individual is not put to suffer any irreparable loss, exercise of suo motu powers after any length of period is justifiable in law, more so, for protection of Government land or public interest?"
2. Indeed, the question which has been referred to this Full Bench is in two parts; the first part pertains to an individual who is not put to irreparable loss and the second part is that what should be the justifiable period within which suo motu powers should be exercised by the revisional authority.
3. We have heard Sarvshri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, A.K. Kaushik and Raghvendra Bhargava, learned counsel for appellants and Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent-State. Since the question referred to this Full Bench is of general importance and further because several cases would be affected and the revisional authority who would exercise suo motu powers shall also be guided, hence, we have also heard Sarvshri K.B. Chaturvedi, H.D. Gupta and S.B. Mishra, learned senior counsel. Sarvshri S.K. Bajpai, R.D. Sharma and Sameer Kumar Jain, learned counsel have also addressed us.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned amicus curiae have highlighted various provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to us the 'Code'), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Acquisition 'Act'), M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for brevity the 'Ceiling Act') and other similar provisions enacted in other statutes and by focusing section 50 of the Code, which speaks about the exercise of revisional power by the Board or Commissioner or/ Settlement Commissioner or Collector or the Settlement Officer, have contended that the suo motu powers cannot be exercised at any point of time. In this context heavy reliance has been made on some decisions of Supreme Court they are State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and others [AIR 1969 SC 1297], ESI Corporation v. C.C. Santhakumar [(2007)1 SCC 584], and Santosh Kumar Shivgonda Patil and others v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others [(2009)9 SCC 352].
5. Shri H.D. Gupta, learned senior counsel, by inviting our attention to section 57 of the Code particularly sub-section (2) and (3) has submitted that if 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 and has further submitted that sub-section (3) provides remedy to any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section (2) to institute a civil suit to contest the validity of that order within a period of one year from the date of such order and, hence, submitted that in order to surpass any order of Sub-Divisional Officer and to get it somersaulted after the expiry of prescribed period of limitation of one year, revisional-jurisdiction should not be exercised so that sub-section (3) of section 57 may not become otiose. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Ram Chand and others v. Union of India and others [(1994)1 SCC 44], and also on the Single Bench decisions of this Court State of M.P and another v. Board of Revenue and others [2006 RN 167], and Kashiram v. Hariram and others [2008 RN 99].
6. Shri K.B. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel has also submitted that suo motu powers cannot be exercised after indefinite period. Learned senior counsel has placed heavy reliance on a Full B
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
