Back
2011 jk fu 186 2011 RN 186
¼mPp U;k;ky;½ (HIGH COURT)
U;k- ,l- laoRlj rFkk U;k- ,-ds- JhokLro
S. Samvatsar and A.K. Shrivastava, JJ.
euthr HkYyk rFkk ,d vU; fo- e-iz- jkT; rFkk vU;
Manjeet Bhalla and another
Vs
State of M.P. and others
fjV vihy dz- 478 lu~ 2009 ¼Xokfy;j½( fu.khZr fnukad 4-12-2009A
Writ Appeal No. 478 of 2009 (Gwalior);
Decided on: 4.12.2009
¼2½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 158 & o"kZ 1946 esa tehankj }kjk iV~Vk fn;k x;k & iV~Vsnkj iDdk d`"kd rFkk rRi‘pkr~ HkwfeLokeh gks x;k & flfoy U;k;ky; ds le{k fookn fd D;k iV~Vsnkj Hkwfe dk Lokeh gS & ml flfoy okn esa jkT; ljdkj Hkh i{kdkj Fkk & flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk iV~Vsnkj gd /kkjd ?kksf"kr & jkT; ljdkj ,sls fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh ls vkc) gSA ¼iSjk 2] 7 rFkk 17½
¼3½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 11 & gd ds izz‘u ij flfoy U;k;ky; dh iwoZ dh fMdzh & jkT; ljdkj i{kdkj & fMdzh dks vafrerk izkIr & ,slh fMdzh jkT; ljdkj ij vkc) gSA ¼iSsjk 12] 13 rFkk 15 ls 17½
¼4½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 57 ¼2½ rFkk 57 ¼3½ & bl mica/k ds v/khu vkns‘k & dk mipkj & O;fFkr i{kdkj /kkjk 57 ¼3½ ds v/khu flfoy okn dj ldrk gS & jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl vkns‘k dks vk{ksfir ugha fd;k x;k & ,sls vkns‘k dks vafrerk izkIr gks tkrh gSA ¼iSjk 18½
¼5½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 51¼1½ & Loizsj.kk ls iqufoZyksdu ‘kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr & jktLo vfHkys[k dks Bhd djus ds laca/k esa mi[kaM vf/kdkjh dk vkns‘k & mi[kaM vf/kdkjh }kjk Loiszj.kk ls iqufoZyksdu esa mi;ZqDr vkns‘k iksf"kr & flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk gd ?kksf"kr & fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k mPpre U;k;ky; rd fLFkj j[kk x;k & vij vk;qDr dks mi[kaM vf/kdkjh ds vkns‘k dk iqufoZyksdu djus ds fy;s Loizsj.kk ls iqufoZyksdu ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA ¼iSjk 3] 4] 19 ,oa 20½
¼6½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 51 & Loizsj.kk ls iqufoZyksdu & ifjlhek & pkj o"kZ O;rhr gksus ds i‘pkr~ & ,slh ‘kfDr;ka iz;qDr ugha dh tk ldrh & gd izsj.kk ls iqufoZyksdu ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djus ds fy, leqfpr le; Ng ekl gSA , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 1297 vuqlfjrA ¼1976½ 2 ,l lh lh 181 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21½
¼7½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 29 ¼1½ & vij vk;qDr ds U;k;ky; ls ekeyk varj.k djus ds fy, vkosnu & vkosnu dh fopkj/khurk esa vkns‘k ikfjr & vfHkfu/kkZfjr] U;k;ky; us ekeys esa vuqfpr tYnckth esa dk;Z fd;k gSA ¼iSjk 22½
¼8½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 2 ¼1½ & dh O;kfIr & gd ds iz‘u ij flfoy U;k;ky; ds iwoZ ds fu.kZ; & vafrerk izkIr & vij vk;qDr dh tkudkjh esa ugha yk, x, & ,sls nLrkost fjV U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd, x, & vkns‘k esa dfFkr nLrkostksa dk mYys[k ugha & fjV vihy esa gLr{ksi fd;k x;k rFkk eatwj dh xbZA ¼iSjk 14 rFkk 23½
(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 11 -- applicability of n appeal dismissed being, barred by time -- though appeal not decided on merits hut order of trial Court maintained -- order of appellate Court not challenged -- order of trial Court has attained finality, [Paras 12 and 13
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 158 -- lease of and granted by Zamindar in year 1946 -- lessee became Pakka tenant and thereafter Bhumiswami -- dispute before civil Court whether lessee was owner of land -- State Government also was party in that civil suit -- lessee declared title holder by civil Court -- State Government is bound by such judgment and decree. [Paras 2, 7 and 17
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 – S. 11 -- earlier decree of civil Court on question of title -- State Government was party -- decree attained finality -- such decree is binding upon State Government. [Paras 12, 13 and 15 to 17
(4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 57 (2) and 57 (3) -- order under -- remedy of -- aggrieved party can file civil suit under section 57 (3) -- State Government has not challenged that order -- such order has attained finality. [Para 18
(5) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 51 (1) -- scope of suo motu powers of review -- order of Sub-Divisional Officer regarding correction of revenue record -- said order maintained in suo motu review by Sub-Divisional Officer -- title declared by Civil Court -- Order of trial Court sustained upto apex Court -- Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to exercise powers of suo-motu review for reviewing order of Sub-Divisional Officer. [Paras 3, 4, 9 and 20
(6) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 51 -- suo motu review -- limitation -- after lapse of four years -- such powers cannot be exercised – reasonable time for exercising suo motu power of review is six months. AIR 1969 SC 1297 followed. (1976) 2 SCC 181 referred to. [Para 21
(7) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 29 (1) -- application for transferring case from Court of Additional Commissioner – during pendency of application order passed -- held. Court has acted with undue haste in matter. [Para 22
(8) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M.P.) -- S. 2 (1) -- scope of -- earlier decisions of civil Courts on question of title -- attained finality -- not brought to notice of Additional Commissioner -- such documents filed before writ Court -- no reference to said documents in order -- interference made in writ appeal and allowed. [Paras 14 and 23
Per S. Samvatsar, J. -- 1. This writ appeal is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4299/06 whereby the learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant challenging the order dated 14.8.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior.
2. Facts of the case, narrated briefly stated, are that the present appellants had approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition with allegation that village Aaukhana Khurd was a Zamindari village. The Ex-Zamindar one Pandurang Rao had leased out the disputed land which is survey number 195, 218 and 219 of one Bapu Shaheb Temak in the year 1948-49. On abolition of Zamindari, said Bapu Saheb Temak became the Pucca Krishak of the said land and consequently, on coming into force the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 he acquired the status of Bhoomiswarni. After the death of said Bapu Saheb Temak, his son Shiv Singh inherited the said property. Said Shivsingh sold the aforesaid three survey numbers to one Ramnath vide registered sale deed dated 18.4.1975. Said Ramnath executed a Will on 21.11.1986 in favour of the present appellants. Ramnath died on 13.12.1987. Thus, the present appellants became the owner of the property.
3. Present appellants filed an application under section 113 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity, the "Code") on 29.12.2000 for correcting the revenue record. Said application was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 20.9.2002 and the revenue entries were corrected vide khasra entry Annexure P/9.
4. Subsequent, notices were issued by the Sub Divisional Officer to the appellants writ petitioners for review of the said order in exercise of his suo motu powers. Said matter was registered as Case No. 6/03-04/A-1. Said review application was disposed of by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 5.8.2004 and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 20.9.2002 was maintained. Thereafter again, notices were issued to the appellants on 23.9.2006 by the Additional Commissioner for exercising powers of suo motu review. This matter was registered as case No. 258/05-06/suo motu review. Present appellants had submitted their reply. After filing of the reply, present appellants filed an application for transfer of the said case before the Board of Revenue on 8.8.2006. Notice of transfer application were issued, but in spite of knowledge of the said proceedings, the Additional Commissioner allowed the review vide order dated 14.8.2006. This order passed by the Additional Commissioner was assailed by the present appellants before the learned single Judge by filing writ petition which stood dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal.
5. The first contention raised by Shri M.N. Krishnamani, Advocate on behalf of the appellants writ petitioners is that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal and contrary to law. The learned writ Court has not considered the fact that the title of the property in question is already decided by the civil Court in favour of the present appellants and therefore, the learned writ Court has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. It is further contended that the learned writ Court has completely ignored the impact of the judgment passed by the civil Court between the same parties. He also contended that exercising powers of suo motu review after expiry of four years is illegal and contrary to law in view of the judgments of the apex Court in the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Suppl. Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 and M/s. S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India and others, (1976) 2 SCC 181. In both these cases, the apex Court has laid down that suo motu powers of review should be exercised within a reasonable time. As per the said judgments of the apex Court, "reasonable time
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
