Back
VIVEK RUSIA
Shantilal S/O Shri Heeralal Mahajan (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Kashiram S/O Kalu – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh, whereby the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Collector, Barwani has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back for fresh adjudication.
2. The facts of the case in short are, as under: -
2.1 The petitioner is a registered owner of the agriculture land bearing Survey No.88 area of 25.51 acres of Village Salkheda, Tehsil Rajpur, District Barwani (M.P.). The predecessor of the petitioner purchased the aforesaid land from respondent Kalu vide registered sale-deed dated 06.03.1929 and placed in to possession. The said sale-deed was the subject matter of Second Appeal No.116 of 1960 (Kalu S/o Gulal v. Heeralal S/o Ramasa and Radhibai W/o Gulal). Vide judgment and decree dated 02.03.1962 second appeal was dismissed and the title of the predecessor of petitioner was confirmed. Thereafter, their names were mutated in the revenue records.
2.2 The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Barwani (M.P.) initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 170-B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959
The court affirmed that transactions predating the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code are not subject to its provisions, and the power of review cannot be exercised beyond the limitation period.
Civil suits can challenge revenue authority orders if they violate principles of natural justice. Failure to notify affected parties renders such orders void.
Point of Law : where the legislature does not provide for any length of time within which the power of revision is to be exercised by the authority, suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise o....
The court affirmed that the provisions of Section 170-B of the MPLR Code protect the land rights of aboriginal tribes, and Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over matters exclusively under the MPLR Code.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters under Section 170B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, particularly regarding benami transactions involving members of aboriginal tribes.
The delay of 11 years in exercising suo motu powers renders such actions arbitrary, violating established legal rights under registered sale deeds.
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
