Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 64
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Dilip Sapre v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 4696 of 2001 (Jabalpur): against the order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal No.
11-5/Ceiling/339/93; Decided on 7.2.2023
Sanjay Agrawal with Shreyas Pandit for petitioner; Girish Kekre, Government Advocate for respondent No. 1/State.
Headnote:
¼1½ Ñf"k t¨r mPpre lhek vfèkfu;e] 1960 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 2 ¼M+½ ¼,d½ rFkk ¼rhu½ && micaèk d¢ vèkhu l{ke çkfèkdkjh && n¨ fÒUu nsorkvksa@eafnjksa }kjk èkkfjr n¨ fÒUu Òwfe;k¡ && n¨ fÒUu fty¨a lkxj ,oa tcyiqj esa fLFkr && l{ke çkfèkdkjh mi[kaM vfèkdkjh gS] vij can¨cLr vk;qä ugÈ && n¨u¨a Òwfe;¨a d¢ ,d gh loZjkdkj d¢ dFku d¢ vkèkkj ij lkxj esa fLFkr nsork dh Òwfe d¨ tcyiqj esa fLFkr eafnj dh Òwfe d¢ lkFk lesfdr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk && loZjkdkj dh çkFkZuk ij vij can¨cLr vk;qä us ekeys esa dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, vufèkdkj vfèkdkfjrk xzg.k dh && Òwfe vfèk'ks"k Ĩf"kr djus dk vij can¨cLr vk;qä }kjk ikfjr vkns'k vfèkdkfjrkjfgr gS && jktLo eaMy }kjk vuqe¨nu voSèk gS && vikLrA
vfÒfuèkkZfjr % vfÒfuèkkZfjr% bl ekeys esa] n¨ fÒUu O;fä;¨a }kjk èkkfjr n¨ fÒUu Òwfe;¨a d¨ n¨u¨a Òwfe;¨a d¢ ,d gh loZjkdkj d¢ dFku ek= d¢ vkèkkj ij ,d lkFk lesfdr fd;k x;k Fkk v©j bl çdkj] vij can¨cLr vk;qä us lu~ 1960 d¢ vfèkfu;e d¢ micaèk¨a d¢ vèkhu dk;Zokgh dj Òwfe vfèk'ks"k Ĩf"kr djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;kA vU;Fkk Òh ;g çdV gS fd mä çkfèkdkjh d¨ lu~ 1960 d¢ vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu ekeys esa dk;Zokgh dj Òwfe vfèk'ks"k Ĩf"kr djus dh vfèkdkfjrk ugÈ Fkh D;¨afd lu~ 1960 d¢ vfèkfu;e d¢ micaèk¨a d¢ vuqlkj mä çkfèkdkjh l{ke ugÈ Fkk v©j ek= blfy, fd loZjkdkj us çkFkZuk dh] çkfèkdkjh us ekeys esa dk;Zokgh dj Òwfe vfèk'ks"k Ĩf"kr djus ds fy, vufèkdkj vfèkdkfjrk xzg.k dhA ;g ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk FkkA ¼iSjk 9
bl çdkj] ;g Li"V gS fd y¨d U;kl dh laifÙk rglhy jgyh ftyk lkxj esa fLFkr nsork dh laifÙk g¨us ls tcyiqj esa fLFkr eafnj dh laifÙk d¢ lkFk lesfdr ugÈ dh tk ldrh rFkk Òwfe vfèk'ks"k Ĩf"kr djus d¢ fook|d dk fofu'p;u djus d¢ fy, tks çkfèkdkjh vU;Fkk Òh l{ke ugÈ gS] mlds }kjk loZjkdkj dh çkFkZuk ij vfèkdkfjrk dk ç;¨x ugÈ fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 10
jktLo e.My us Òh bl fof'k"V igyw ij fopkj ugÈ fd;k gS fd n¨ fÒUu nsorkv¨a dh Òwfe;k¡ ek= blfy, lesfdr ugÈ dh tk ldrha fd n¨u¨a Òwfe;¨a dk ,d gh loZjkdkj gS v©j mlus Òwfe;k¡ lesfdr djus dh çkFkZuk dh gS] tcfd loZjkdkj dk Òwfe;¨a ij d¨Ã gd ugÈ gS v©j og d¢oy çcaèkd Fkk v©j ns[kHkky dj jgk Fkk] rFkk çkfèkdkjh og vfèkdkfjrk vufèkdkj xzg.k ugÈ dj ldrk t¨ fd dkuwu esa micafèkr ugha gSA vkb ,y vkj ¼2019½ ,e ih 1376 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼1955½ 1 ,l lh vkj 117 ¾ , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 340] ¼2007½ 2 ,l lh lh 355] ¼2009½ 2 ,l lh lh 315] ¼2011½ 11 ,l lh lh 198] ¼2011½ 11 ,l lh lh 212] ¼2015½ 7 ,l lh lh 690 rFkk ¼1999½ 4 ,l lh lh 396 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 12
¼2½ eafnj && loZjkdkj dh gSfl;r && laifÙk nsork dh gS && eafnj ;k nsork dh laifÙk ij loZjkdkj dk d¨Ã gd ugÈ && og d¢oy çcaèkd gksrk gS rFkk eafnj dh ns[kHkky djrk gSA vkb ,y vkj ¼2019½ ,e ih 1376 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 9 ,oa 12
¼3½ vkns'k && oS/krk && vfèkdkfjrkjfgr vkns'k && jktLo eaMy }kjk vuqe¨fnr && jktLo eaMy dk vkns'k Òh voSèk gS && vikLr fd, x,A ¼iSjk 13
¼4½ vfèkdkfjrk && dkuwu esa micafèkr ugÈ && ,slh vfèkdkfjrk vufèkdkj xzg.k ugÈ dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 12
(1) Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (M. P.) -- S. 2 (e) (i) and 2 (e) (iii) -- competent authority -- two different lands owned by two different deities/temples -- situated in two different districts Sagar and Jabalpur -- competent authority is Sub-Divisional Officer, not Additional Settlement Commissioner -- on basis of statement of common Sarvarakar of both lands, land of deity situated at Sagar cannot be clubbed with land of temple situated at Jabalpur -- on request of Sarvarakar, Additional Settlement Commissioner usurped jurisdiction to proceed in matter -- order passed by Additional Settlement Commissioner declaring land surplus is without jurisdiction -- Board of Revenue giving seal of approval is illegal -- set aside.
Held : In this case, two different lands owned by two different persons were clubbed together only on the basis of statement of common Sarvarakar of both the lands and as such, Upper Commissioner of Settlement proceeded under the provisions of Act, 1960 and passed an order declaring the land surplus. It otherwise reveals that the said authority in fact having no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter for declaring the land surplus under the provisions of Act, 1960 because as per the provisions of Act, 1960, said authority was not competent and only because Sarvarakar made a request, the authority usurped jurisdiction to proceed in the matter for declaring the land surplus. This could not have been done. [Para 9
Thus, it is clear that the property of public trust being property of deity situated at Tahsil Rahli District Sagar cannot be clubbed with the property of Mandir situated at Jabalpur and at the request of Sarvarakar, jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the authority even otherwise not competent to decide the issue of declaring the land surplus. [Para 10
The Board of Revenue has also not dealt with this particular aspect that the land of two different deities cannot be clubbed together only because for both the lands Sarvarakar is common and he made request for clubbing the lands whereas Sarvarakar having no title over the land and he was only a manager and acting as caretaker and the authority cannot usurp jurisdiction which is otherwise not provided by the Statute. ILR (2019) MP 1376 (DB) relied on. (1955) 1 SCR 117 = AIR 1954 SC 340, (2007) 2 SCC 355, (2009) 2 SCC 315, (2011) 11 SCC 198, (2011) 11 SCC 212, (2015) 7 SCC 690 and (1999) 4 SCC 396 referred to. [Para 12
(2) Temple -- status of Sarvarakar -- property belongs to deity -- Sarvarakar has no title of property of temple or deity -- he is only manager and acts as caretaker of temple. ILR (2019) MP 1376 (DB) relied on. [Paras 9 & 12
(3) Order -- legality -- order without jurisdiction -- approved by Board of Revenue -- order of Board of Revenues also illegal -- set aside. [Para 13
(4) Jurisdiction -- not provided under Statute -- such jurisdiction cannot be usurped. [Para 12
ORDER
1. The instant petition is languishing since 2001 to see its fate and listed under caption ‘final hearing list’. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue in an appeal preferred under section 41 of Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for brevity “Act, 1960”). approving the order passed by the competent authority. The appeal was numbered as Appeal No.11-5/Ceiling/339/93 decided by the Board of Revenue by the impugned order dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner and hence this petition has been filed.
3. The adumbration of facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that at the time of initiating proceedings under the provisions of Act, 1960, the land in question belonged to deity and later-on in 1986 it got registered as a public trust. The gazette publication was made in this regard in State Gazette in 1982 and later-on the order has been passed on 24.5.1986 (Annexure-P/2) by the competent authority declaring the petitioner to be a ‘pubic trust’ and registered as such. According to trust deed, the petitioner-trust had 622.41 acres of land in Tahsil Rahli, District Sagar. At the relevant point of time, one Narayan Rao Kher was Sarvarakar of said trust and at the same time, he was also Sarvarakar of Dev Kaal Bhairavi and Yogeshwari Mandir (in short “Mandir”) situated in Jabalpur having 69.99 acres of land. The property of petitioner as well as Mandir was clubbed together and proceeding initiated under the provision of Act, 1960 to declare the land surplus. The objections were invited but nobody came-forward except then Sarvarakar Narayan Rao and who made a request that property of the petitioner-trust and Mandir shall be clubbed together and proceedings be initiated thereafter. The Additional Settlement Commissioner proceeded accepting the request of the-then Sarvarakar and as an interim measure passed an order dated 5.7.1990 declaring 400 acres of land surplus. This order was later-on reviewed by another Additional Settlement Commissioner on 18.2.1991 and by that order total 630.84 acres instead of 400 acres of land was declared surplus. Against the order dated 18.02.1991 an appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by order dated 27.6.1991 remitted the matter to the Additional Settlement Commissioner setting aside the order dated 18.02.1991 restoring the order dated 5.7.1990 and thereafter Additional Settlement Commissioner passed an order on 4.11.1992 (Annexure-P/4) and it is the final order in respect of the proceeding initiated under the Act, 1960 declaring 400 acres of land of petitioner surplus. Against this order, an appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by impugned order dated 03.07.2001 (Annexure-P/5) dismissed the appeal maintaining the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner.
The challenge before the Board of Revenue was that the land of petitioner was situated in village Rahli District Sagar has nothing to do with the land of Mandir situated at Jabalpur except for the fact that both the lands have common Sarvarakar i.e. Narayan Rao, but the Board of Revenue despite accepting the submission of the petitioner, did not interfere in the order observing therein that since Sarvarakar in both the deities were common, therefore, nothing illegal has been done by the Additional Settlement Commissioner declaring 400 acres of land of petitioner surplus.
Being aggrieved by the observations and finding of the Board of Revenue, this petition has been filed challenging the proceeding initiated against the petitioner and orders passed by the authorities in the said proceedings.
4. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner challenged the i
