Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Umrao Singh v. Lal Singh
Writ Petition No.9867 of 2016 (Jabalpur); against
order dated 2.5.2016 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision;
Decided on 21.7.2016.
Anuvad Shrivastava for petitioner; Anil Kumar Jain for respondents.
Headnote: ¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-227 & mica/k ds v/khu ;kfpdk & ds i{kdkj & U;kf;d izkf/kdkfj;ksa ;k U;k;ky;ksa dks & ftuds vkns'k vk{ksfir fd, x, & i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk visf{kr ugha & mudks i{kdkj cuk, fcuk & ;kfpdk pykus ;ksX; gSA ¼iSjk 7
¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 50¼5½ & iqujh{k.k 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr & fojks/kh i{kdkj dks dkj.k crkvks lwpuk nsuk & vkKkid gS & 2-5-2016 dks iqujh{k.k izLrqr fd;k x;k & fojks/kh i{kdkj dks lwpuk tkjh fd, fcuk & mlh fnu iqujh{k.k eatwj fd;k x;k & jktLo eaMy }kjk viukbZ xbZ ,slh izfØ;k & fof/k ls iw.kZr;k vKkr gS & jktLo eaMy dk ,slk vkns'k vikLr fd;k x;k & iqujh{k.k esa fofèk ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, jktLo eaMy funsf'krA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa] jktLo eaMy }kjk viukbZ xbZ izfØ;k fof/k ls iw.kZr;k vKkr gSA blds le{k vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad
27-4-1998 ;kph ds i{k esa FkkA bl izdkj] ;kph dks lwpuk fn, fcuk vkSj uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vuqlj.k fd, fcuk] jktLo eaMy dks iqujh{k.k eatwj djuk vkSj mijksDr vkns'k dks vikLr djuk vjf{kr ugha FkkA lafgrk dh /kkjk 50¼5½ esa uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar oxhZÑr gSaA
bl U;k;ky; ds /;ku esa vk;k gS fd jktLo eaMy us vusd izdj.kksa esa leku vkns'k ikfjr fd, gSa tgk¡ v/khuLFk jktLo izkf/kdkjh dk vafre vkns'k nwljs i{k dks lwpuk tkjh fd, fcuk ,oa lquokbZ fd, fcuk lquokbZ dh izFke rkjh[k dks vikLr fd;k x;k gSA ;g Li"Vr% lafgrk dh /kkjk 50 dh mièkkjk ¼5½ dh vkKk ds ,oa uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds izfrdwy gSA jktLo eaMy ls bl igyw dh vksj lko/kku jgus dh vis{kk gSA fu.kZ; djus dh izfØ;k ikjn'khZ vkSj uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar ,oa dkuwu 'kkflr ds vuqlkj gksuk pkfg,A
¼3½ uSlfxZd U;k; & dk fl)kar & 2-5-2016 dks iqujh{k.k izLrqr & fojks/kh i{kdkj dks lwpuk fn, fcuk mlh fnu eatwj fd;k x;k & ,slk vkns'k uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa ds mYya?ku esa gS ,oa fLFkj ugha j[kk tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 8
(1) Constitution of India -- Art.227 -- writ petition under -- parties to -- judicial authorities or Courts -- whose orders challenged -- not required to be impleaded -- without impleading them -- petition is maintainable. [Para 7
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S.50(5) -- scope of revisional powers -- show cause notice to opposite party -- is mandatory -- revision filed on 2.5.2016 -- without issuing notice to opposite party -- revision allowed on same day -- such procedure adopted by Board of Revenue -- is totally unknown to law -- such order of Board of Revenue set aside -- Board directed to proceed with revision in accordance with law.
Held : In the opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by Board of Revenue is totally unknown to law. The order impugned before it dated 27.4.1998 was in favour of the petitioner. Thus, without putting the petitioner to notice and without following the principles of natural justice, it was not open to the Board of Revenue to allow the revision and set aside the said order. The principles of natural justice are codified in the statute in the shape of section 50 (5) of the Code.
This Court has noticed that Board of Revenue has passed similar orders in various cases where a final order of an inferior revenue authority is set aside on the first date of hearing without issuing notice and without hearing the other side. This is clearly against the mandate of sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Code and principles of natural justice. The Board of Revenue needs to be careful on this aspect. The decision making process should be transparent and as per the principles of natural justice and governing statute.
(3) Natural Justice -- principles of -- revision filed on 2.5.2016 -- allowed on same day without notice to opposite party -- such order is in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
[Para 8
1. With the consent, finally heard.
2. This petition is directed against the order of Board of Revenue dated 2.5.2016 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 27.4.1998.
3. Criticizing this order, Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He contended that the revision was filed by the other side on 2.5.2016 before the Board of Revenue. On the same date, without issuing notice to the other side, learned Board allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 27.4.1998. He submits that this runs contrary to section 50(5) of M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code).
4. Prayer is opposed by Shri Jain, learned counsel for the respondents by taking assistance from the preliminary objection filed on the aspect of maintainability of the petition. He advanced two fold contentions. Firstly, it is urged that Board of Revenue has not been impleaded as party respondent and, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. Secondly, it is urged that the land was sold to the third party and now mutation has taken place in favour of the said third party.
5. No other point is pressed by the parties.
6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
7. The Board of Revenue has passed a judicial order as per the provisions of Land Revenue Code. Against that order, this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is settled in law that judicial authority/Courts are not required to be impleaded when their judgments/orders are called in question. Thus, I am unable to hold that this petition suffers from non-impleadment of necessary parties. So far as the second contention of Shri Jain is concerned, I am not inclined to look into the said aspect. Before this Court, the order of Board of Revenue dated 2.5.2016 is under challenged. This Court is required to examine the legality, validity and propriety of the said order. The order shows that revision was filed on 2.5.2016 only. On the same date without issuing notice to the other side, the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 27.4.1998.
8. In the opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by Board of Revenue is totally unknown to law. The order impugned before it dated 27.4.1998 was in favour of the petitioner. Thus, without putting the petitioner to notice and without following the principles of natural justice, it was not open to the Board of Revenue to allow the revision and set aside the said order. The principles of natural justice are codified in the statute in the shape of section 50(5) of the Code, which reads as under :-
“50(5) No order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard.”
9. Thus, it is clear that the Board of Revenue has committed a serious procedural irregularity/illegality. Resultantly, the order dated 2.5.2016 is set aside. The Board is directed to proceed further with the said revision in accordance with law.
10. I am constrained to observe that this Court has noticed that Board of Revenue has passed similar orders in various cases where a final order of an inferior revenue authority is set aside on the first date of hearing without issuing notice and without hearing the other side. This is clearly against the mandate of sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Code and principles of natural justice. The Board of Revenue needs to be careful on this aspect. The decision making process should be transparent and as per the principles of natural justice and governing statute. I hope that the Board of Revenue will be careful in future. The Registry of this Court shall send a copy of this order to the learned Member of Board of Revenue, who has passed the order dated 2.5.2016 (Annexure P-5).
The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
