Ravindra Kumar Gupta vs State of M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(MP) 579

2011 jk fu 102 2011 RN 102
¼mPp U;k;ky;½ (HIGH COURT)
U;k- vkj- ,l- >k
R.S. Jha, J.
jfoUnz dqekj xqIrk fo- e-iz- jkT; rFkk vU;
Ravindra Kumar Gupta
Vs
State of M.P. and others
fjV ;kfpdk dz- 10863 lu~ 2009 ¼tcyiqj½( fu.khZr fnukad 5-8-2010A
Writ Petition No. 10863 of 2009 (Jabalpur);
Decided on: 5.8.2010

oh-ih- usek ;kph dh vksj ls( foosd vxzoky izR;FkhZx.k dh vksj lsA
Advocates Appeared:
V.P. Nema for petitioner;
Vivek Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for respondents.

Headnote:¼1½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 104¼2½ rFkk 22¼2½ & vf/klwpuk dz- 11429&lh vkj&653&lkr&,u&2 fnukad 1-10-1959 e-iz- jkti= fnukad 9-10-1959 esa izdkf‘kr & mi[kaM vf/kdkjh }kjk iVokjh dh lsoklekfIr & vf/kdkfjrk jfgr ugha & vf/klwpuk }kjk /kkjk 104¼2½ ds v/khu dysDVj dh ‘kfDr;ka mi&[kaM vf/kdkjh dks iznRr & mi[kaM vf/kdkjh dks iVokjh dks fu;qDr rFkk inP;qr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gSA 1978 ¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 116 rFkk 1995 jk fu 67 ¼mPp U;k-½ voyafcrA 2008 jk fu 437 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk dz- 8777@2003( fu.khZr fnukad 25-9-2008 vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k gksuk ekus x;sA ¼iSjk 7] ls 14 rFkk 20½
       ¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ¼e-iz-½ & fu- 5] 8] 10] 24 rFkk 29 & iVokjh dk fu;qfDrdrkZ rFkk vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh & mi[kaM vf/kdkjh gSA ¼iSjk 10½
       ¼3½ iwoZ fu.kZ; & [kaM U;k;ihB ds iwoZ fofu‘p; & ,dy ihB dh tkudkjh esa ugha yk, x, & ,dy U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; [kaM U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p;ksa ds fo:) rFkk e-iz- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk dh /kkjk 22 ds mica/k ds Hkh fo:) & ,dy U;k;ihB ds ,sls fofu‘p; vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k gS rFkk vkc)dj ugha gS & [kaM U;k;ihB ds fofu‘p; vkc)dj gSA 2003 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 105 voyafcrA ¼1998½ 2 ,l ,l lh 602] ¼1990½ 3 ,l lh lh 682] ¼2006½ 5 ,l lh lh 752 rFkk ¼2006½ 3 ,l lh lh 1 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15 ls 20½
       ¼4½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; & ‘‘kCn ^vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k* & ls vfHkizk; iwoZ dk fofu‘p; U;k;ky; dh tkudkjh esa ugha yk;k x;k & iwoZ fofu‘p; dh tkudkjh ds fcuk rFkk fof/k ds mica/k ds fo:) fofu‘p; & ,slk fofu‘p; ^vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k* gS rFkk vkc)dj ugha gS & iwoZ dk fofu‘p; vkc)dj gSA 2003 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 105 voyafcrA ¼1998½ 2 ,l lh lh 602] ¼1990½ 3 ,l lh lh 682] ¼2006½ 5 ,l lh lh 752 rFkk ¼2006½ 3 ,l lh lh 1 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15 ls 20½

       (1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 104 (2) and 22 (2) -- Notification No. 11429-CR-653-VII-N-2, dated 1.10.1959 published in M.P. Gazette dated 9.10.1959 -- termination of Patwari by Sub-Divisional Officer -- not without jurisdiction -- powers of Collector under section 104 (2) conferred upon Sub-Divisional Officer by notification – Sub-Divisional Officer has power to appoint and dismiss a Patwari. 1978 (II) MPWN 116 and 1995 RN 67 (HC) relied on. 2008 RN 437 and WP No 8777/2003; Decided on 25.9.2008 rendered per incuriam. [Paras 7 to 14 and 20
       (2) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (M.P.) -- Rr. 5, 8, 10, 24 and 29 -- appointing and disciplinary authority of Patwari -- is Sub-Divisional Officer. [Para 10
       (3) Precedent -- earlier decisions of Division Bench -- not brought to notice of Single Bench -- decisions of Single Bench against decisions of Division Bench and also against provisions of section 22 of M.P. Land Revenue Code -- decisions of Single Bench are per incuriam and not binding -- decisions of Division Bench are binding. 2003 (1) JLJ 105 relied on. (1998) 2 SCC 602, (1990) 3 SCC 682, (2006) 5 SCC 752 and (2006) 3 SCC 1 followed. [Paras 15 to 20
       (4) Words and Phrases -- words ‘per incuriam‘ -- means earlier decision not brought to notice of Court -- decision without notice of earlier decision and against provisions of law -- such decision is ‘per incuriam‘ and not binding -- earlier decision is binding. 2003 (I) JLJ 105 relied on. (1998) 2 SCC 602, (1990) 3 SCC 682, (2006) 5SCC 752 and (2096) 3 SCC 1 followed. [Paras 51 to 20

ORDER

1. The petitioner, who is Patwari of Revenue Circle Bahoriband, Patwari Halka No. 23/38 of Village Udaipur, by way of the instant petition has assailed the legal validity of order dated 10.7.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sihora by which the petitioner's services as Patwari have been terminated and order dated 16.10.2007 passed by the Collector dismissing his appeal.

2. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a second appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division which is pending adjudication but as the very initiation of proceedings and the order of termination of the petitioner is without jurisdiction and authority of law, as held by this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Khare v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2008 RN 437 = ILR (2008) MP 1436, and the judgment in the case of Phulloo Ram Kol v. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 8777/2003, decided on 25.9.2008, the petitioner has filed the present petition during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner.

3. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Patwari whose Appointing/Disciplinary authority is the Collector as prescribed in Section 104 (2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and the notification issued under section 24 of the Code does not confer any power or authority upon the Sub-Divisional Officer, in spite of which the impugned order of termination in respect of the petitioner dated 10.7.2006 has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sihora which per se is without authority or jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Vinod Kumar Khare (supra) and Phulloo Ram Kol (supra) to submit that the aforesaid legal position has already been settled by this Court and, therefore, the impugned order of termination of the petitioner be quashed.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length, section 104 (2) of the Code reads as under:-

"(2) The Collector shall appoint one or more Patwaris to each Patwari Circle for the maintenance and correction of land records and for such other duties as the State Government may prescribe."

Section 22 of the Code, which is relevant for the purpose of decision of the issue, raised by the petitioner, is in the following terms:-

"Sub-Divisional Officers: - (1) The Collector may place one or more Assistant Collector or Deputy Collectors-in-charge of a Sub-Division of a District or In-charge of two or more Sub-Divisions of a District.

(2) Such Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector shall be called a Sub-Divisional Officer and shall exercise such powers of a Collector as the State Government may, by notification direct."

5. In exercise of powers conferred by section 22, sub-section (2) of the Code, the State Government issued notification No. 11429-CR-653-VII-N-2, dated 1.10.1959, which was published in the M.P. Gazette, dated 9.10.1959 which is in the following terms:-

"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No. 20 of 1959), and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject, the State Government hereby directs that all Sub-Divisional Officers shall exercise powers of a Collector under sub-section (2) of section 57, sub-section (5) of section 59, section 87, sub-section (2) of section 104 and subsection (2) of section 110 of the said Code, within their respective jurisdictions."

6. A conjoint reading of the provisions of section 22 and section 104 (2) of the Code and the notification issued under section 22 of the Code, makes it abundantly clear that the powers of appointment of Patwaries for each Patwari Circle has been conferred upon the Collector under section 104 (2) of the Code and that under section 22 (2) of the Code the Sub-Divisional Officer has been empowered to exercise such powers of the Collectors as the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document