Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(DIVISION BENCH)
S.C. Sharma and Virender Singh, JJ.
Tukojirao Puar (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Shrimant Gayatri Raje Puar and others v. Board of Revenue and others
Writ Appeal No. 624 of 2020 (Indore): against the order dated 6.1.2020 passed in W.P. No. 8619/2020 [Published in 2020(1) RN 131]; Decided on 29.7.2020
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 51 -- M.P. Ceiling on agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 -- Ss. 41 and 42 -- maintainability of review under section 51 of Code -- order passed by board of revenue in appeal under section 41 of Ceiling Act -- no provision of review under ceiling Act -- powers of suo motu review under section 51 of Code cannot be exercised for reviewing such order -- suo motu review is not maintainable -- proceedings of suo motu review and order of Board of Revenue quashed.
Held : In the present case, the statute has permitted an appeal and revision before the Board of Revenue, and therefore, once the parent statute has not conferred the power of review, section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 could not have been invoked by the Board of Revenue in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 2020 (1) RN 131 = 2020 (1) JLJ 579 overruled. 1966 RN 78 = 1966 JLJ 119, 2000 RN 193 (HC) relied on. (2019) 9 SCC 416, (2010) 9 SCC 437 and (1971) 3 SCC 844 followed. AIR 1964 SC 1372, (1979) 4 SCC 389, AIR 1960 SC 137, (1997) 8 SCC 715, (2020) 2 SCC 338, AIR 2012 SC 3874, (2006) 5 SCC 501, (1975) 1 SCC 674, (1982) 2 SCC 167, (2013) 8 SCC 320 and (2017) 8 SCC 518 referred to. [Paras 30 to 33 & 51]
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 51 -- exercise of suo motu powers of review -- limitation -- cannot be exercised after about four years -- change of presiding officer -- does not mean that Board of Revenue was not having knowledge of order. 2010 RN 409= 2010 (3) JLJ 77 (FB) and 2014 RN 191 (HC) relied on. [Paras 33 & 36]
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 51 -- scope of powers -- cannot be exercised as hearing of appeal -- review is by no means appeal and erroneous decision can not be set aside in review -- such powers may be exercised on discovery of new and important matter or evidence or some mistake or error apparent on face of record.
Held : The Board of Revenue, while allowing the appeal of the appellants, has passed a cogent and reasoned order and the Board of Revenue is in fact exercising its review jurisdiction under section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 as if it is hearing an appeal. A review is by no mean an appeal in disguise and an erroneous decision cannot be set aside in review. [Paras 38 & 40]
In the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the Board of Revenue in fact under the guise of review is hearing the matter as an appellate Court. (2006) 6 SCC 78, (2008) 8 SCC 612, (2009) 14 SCC 663 and (2009) 10 SCC 464 followed. [Paras 41 & 42 to 51]
(4) Civil P.C. 1908 -- S.114 and O.47 R.1 -- scope of powers of review -- no error apparent on face of record -- case decided on merits -- re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of case as appellate Court is not permissible. [Paras 41 to 43]
(5) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M.P.) -- S. 2(1) -- appeal -- maintainability -- Board of Revenue committed error apparent on face of proceedings with clear disregard to provisions of law -- Writ Petition for issuance of writ of certiorari -- dismissed -- while error on face of record can be corrected by writ of certiorari -- Writ appeal in peculiar facts and circumostances of case is maintainable -- appeal allowed -- order passed in writ petition set aside. 2020(1) RN 131= 2020 (1) JLJ 579, Overruled. 2017 (3) JLJ 282 (FB) relied on. W.A. No. 338 of 2018 decided on 15.5.2018; W.A. No. 691 of 2014 decided on 5.2.2015 and W.A. No. 265 of 2017 decided on 4.9.2017 referred to. [Paras 48 to 51]
¼1½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & èkkjk 51 & eŒÁŒ d`f"kd tksr mPpre lhek vfèkfu;e] 1960 & èkkjk 41 rFkk 42 & lafgrk dh èkkjk 51 ds vèkhu iqufoZyksdu dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk & jktLo eaMy }kjk mPpre lhek vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 41 dks v/khu vihy esa ikfjr vkns'k & mPpre lhek vf/kfu;e ds vèkhu iqufoZyksdu dk dksbZ micaèk ugha & ,sls vkns'k dk iqufoZyksdu djus ds fy, lafgrk dh èkkjk 51 ds vèkhu Lo&Ásj.kk ls iqufoZyksdu dh 'kfDr Á;qDr ugha dh tk ldrh & Lo&Ásj.kk ls iqufoZyksdu pykus ;ksX; ugha & LoÁsj.kk ls iqufoZyksdu dh dk;Zokgh rFkk jktLo eaMy dk vkns'k vfHk[kafMrA
vfHkfuèkkZfjr% bl ekeys esa] dkuwu esa jktLo eaMy ds le{k vihy rFkk iqujh{k.k vuqKkr gS] vkSj blfy,] tc ewy dkuwu esa iqufoZyksdu dh 'kfDr ÁnÙk ugha dh xbZ gS] rc ekeys ds fof'k"V rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa jktLo eaMy }kjk eŒÁŒ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 dh èkkjk 51 dk vkJ; ugha fy;k tk ldrk FkkA 2020 ¼1½ jkŒfuŒ 131 % 2020 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 579 mYVk x;kA 1966 jkŒfuŒ 78 % 1966 ts ,y ts 119] 2000 jkŒ fuŒ 193 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½ voyafcrA ¼2019½ 9 ,l lh lh 416] ¼2010½ 9 ,l lh lh 437] ¼1971½ 3 ,l lh lh 844 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 1372] ¼1979½ 4 ,l lh lh 389] , vkb vkj 1960 ,l lh 137] ¼1997½ 8 ,l lh lh 715] ¼2020½ 2 ,l lh lh 338] , vkb vkj 2012 ,l lh lh 3874] ¼2006½ 5 ,l lh lh 501] ¼1975½ 1 ,l lh lh 674] ¼1982½ 2 ,l lh lh 167] ¼2013½ 8 ,l lh lh 320 rFkk ¼2017½ 8 ,l lh lh 518 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 30 ls 33 ,oa 51½
¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & èkkjk 51 & LoÁsj.kk ls iqufoZyksdu 'kfDr dk Á;ksx & ifjlhek & yxHkx pkj o"kZ i'pkr~ Á;qDr ugha dh tk ldrh & ihBklhu vfèkdkjh dk cny tkuk & rkRi;Z ;g ugha fd jktLo eaMy dks vkns'k dh tkudkjh ugha FkhA 2010 jkŒfuŒ 409 % 2010 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 77 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk 2014 jkŒfuŒ 191 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 35 ,oa 36½
¼3½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & èkkjk 51 & 'kfDr dh O;kfIr vihy dh lquokbZ ds :i esa Á;qDr ugha dh tk ldrh & iqufoZyksdu fdlh Hkh Ádkj ls vihy ugha gS rFkk =qfViw.kZ fofu'p; iqufoZykdu esa vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ,slh 'kfDr dk Á;ksx u, ,oa egRoiw.kZ fo"k; ;k lk{; vFkok vfHkys[k ls ÁdV fdlh Hkwy ;k yxrh dk ÁdVhdj.k gksus ij fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vfHkfuèkkZfjr% jktLo eaMy us vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy eatwj djrs le; rdZiw.kZ ,oa ldkj.k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS rFkk jktLo eaMy us eŒÁŒ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 dh èkkjk 51 ds vèkhu viuh iqufoZyksdu 'kfDr dk Á;ksx oLrqr% bl Ádkj fd;k gS tSls fd og vihy dh lquokbZ dj jgk gksA iqufoZyksdu fdlh Hkh Ádkj ls Nn~e vihy ugha gksrk ,oa iqufoZyksdu esa xyr vkns'k vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 38 ,oa 40½
bl ekeys esa] vfHkys[k dks ns[krs gh ÁdV dksbZ xyrh ugha gS ,oa jktLo eaMy oLrqr% iqufoZyksdu ds cgkus ekeys dh lquokbZ vihy ds :i esa U;k;ky; ds dj jgk gSA ¼2006½ 4 ,l lh lh 78] ¼2008½ 8 ,l lh lh 612] ¼2009½ 10 ,l lh lh 464 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 41 rFkk 42 ls 51½
¼4½ flfoy ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & èkkjk 114 rFkk vkŒ 47 fuŒ 1 & iqufoZyksdu dh 'kfDr dh O;kfIr & vfHkys[k dks ns[krs gh ÁdV dksbZ xyrh ugha & ekeyk xq.kkxq.k ij fofu'pr & vihy U;k;ky; ds :i esa lk{; dk iquewZY;kadu ,oa ekeys dh iqu% lquokbZ djuk vuqKkr ughaA ¼iSjk 41 ls 43½
¼5½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaMihB U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vfèkfu;e] 2005 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & èkkjk 2¼1½ & vihy & pykus ;ksX; gksuk & jktLo eaMy us fofèk ds mica/kksa dh Li"V mis{kk djrs gq, dk;Zokgh dks ns[krs gh ÁdV xyrh dh & mRÁs"k.k fjV tkjh fd, tkus ds fy, fjV ;kfpdk & [kkfjt & tcfd vfHkys[k dks ns[krs gh ÁdV xyrh mRÁs"k.k fjV }kjk 'kq) dh tk ldrh gS & ekeys ds fof'k"V rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fjV vihy pykus ;ksX; & vihy eatwj & fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns'k vikLrA 2020 ¼1½ jkŒfuŒ 131 % 2020 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 579 mYVs x,A 2017 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 282 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA fjV vihy Øekad 338@2018 fu.khZr fnukad 15-5-2018] fjV vihy Øekad 691 lu~ 2014 fu.khZr fnukad 5-2-2018 rFkk fjV vihy Øekad 265@2017 fu.khZr fnukad 4-9-2017 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 48 ls 51½
ORDER
1. The appellants before this Court have filed this present writ appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8619/2020 (Tukojirao Puar (deceased) through L.Rs Shrimant Gayatri Raje Puar & Others v. The Board of Revenue & Others).
2. The facts of the case reveal that the appellantss are the legal heirs of Late His Highness Maharaja Tukojirao Puar. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh Ceiling Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 (Act No. 20 of 1960) was enacted and it came into force on 1.10.1960. The Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, as already stated earlier, came into force on 1.10.1960 and that relevant point of time, in the territory of erstwhile Dewas Senior State, the agricultural land and forest land were held in the following names:-
(a) The grandfather of appellants No.2, His Late Highness Maharja Krishnajirao Puar;
(b) Shri Tukojirao Puar, Religious and Charitable Trust
(c) Shri Krishnajirao Puar Religions and Charitable Trust;
(d) Dewas Farm Project Private Limited.
3. The Royal Family of Dewas, Senior State also owned a palace known as 'Anand Bhawan Palace' and the land attached to the palace was were included in the list of private property of Ex-rulers of the ersthwhile Dewas Senior State.
4. The proceedings were initiated under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 against the predecessor-in-title by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain exercising power of the competent authority under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 and because the land was partly in Dewas District and partly in Ratlam District, the final order was passed by the competent authority on 18.1.1999.
5. An appeal was also preferred against the order dated 18.1.1999 under section 41 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior and the Board of Revenue allowed the appeal by an order dated 19.5.2006 holding that the order dated 18.1.1999 passed by the competent authority was unlawful and accordingly quashed all action and proceedings against the appellants under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960.
6. The facts of the case further reveal that after a lapse of four years, the Board of Revenue took suo motu cognizance for reviewing the matter on 22.5.2010. A review case registered by the Board of Revenue under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 and was numbered as suo motu review 712/PBR/10-Dewas. On 15.6.2010, the Board of Revenue issued a show-cause notice to late Shri Tukojirao Puar, the predecessor-in-title of the appellants and a reply was filed to the show-cause notice on 20.7.2010 raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of suo motu review. On the 22.9.2010, an additional reply was also filed and written arguments were also submitted on 22.10.2010. The Board of Revenue on 29.4.2011 rejected the application, by which, preliminary objections were raised. It was held by the Board of Revenue that the Board of Revenue is having jurisdiction under section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the review is maintainable.
7. The appellants came before this Court being aggrieved by the exercise of suo motu review initiated by the Board of Revenue and the order dated 29.4.2011, by which, the preliminary objections were rejected. This Court has granted an interim order in the matter, and finally, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding
that the review is maintainable keeping in view the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised various grounds before this Court and it has been argued that there is no provision of review under
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
