Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 143
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Shakuntala (Smt.) v. State of M. P. and others
Writ Petition No. 16992 of 2011 with Writ Petition No. 20504 of 2014 and Writ Petition No. 23 of 2015 (Jabalpur); Decided on 20.2.2019.
P. N. Pathak and Sanjay Seth for petitioners; Rohit Sohgaura, Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Headnote:¼1½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 32 & 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr & U;k; ds mn~ns';ksa dh iwfrZ ds fy, rFkk U;k;ky; dh çfØ;k ds nq#i;ksx ds fuokj.k ds fy, foLr`r gS & vfHkO;fDr ^^bl lafgrk dh fdlh Hkh ckr ds laca/k esa ;g ugha le>k tk,xk fd varfuZfgr 'kfDr dks lhfer djrh gS ;k mls vU;Fkk ÁHkkfor djrh gS** & Ákf/kdkjh@U;k;ky; dks varfuZfgr ;k vlkËkkj.k 'kfDr nsus ds fy, fo/kk;h ;qfDr ds :Ik esa Á;qDr dh xbZ gSA ¼iSjk 17½
¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 32 & flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 151 & lafgrk dh /kkjk 32 flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh èkkjk 151 ds lefo"k;d gS & /kkjk 32 ds v/khu 'kfDr vf/kd O;kid gS & 1959 dh lafgrk ds v/khu ,slk dksbZ fofufnZ"V mica/k ugha gS tks jktLo U;k;ky; dks 1959 dh lafgrk dh /kkjk 32 ds v/khu 'kfDr dk vkJ; ysus ls Áfrf"k) djrk gksA , vkb vkj 1970 ,l lh 997 rFkk ¼2004½ 11 ,l lh lh 168 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17½
¼3½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 32 rFkk 116 & nksuksa ds e/; varj & /kkjk 116 ds v/khu miyC/k mipkj dh Á—fr dh vis{kk /kkjk 32 ds vËkhu 'kfDr vf/kd O;kid gS & /kkjk 32] /kkjk 116 ds Áfrdwy ugha gSA , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 1659 ÁHksfnr gSA ¼iSjk 17½
¼4½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 117 & Hkw&vfHkys[kksa dh Áfof"V;ka & lgh gksus dh mi/kkj.kk dh tk,xh & fof/kd mi/kkj.kk & [kaMuh; gS & /kkjk 117 [kljk Áfof"V;ksa esa O;Dr rF; ds lcwr ls foeqDr ugha djrh & ,slh [kljk Áfof"V;ka fu'pk;d lcwr ugha & l{ke Ákf/kdkjh }kjk ,slh Áfof"V;ksa dh vlyh;r] 'kq)rk rFkk oS/krk dk ijh{k.k fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1986 jk fu 23 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 19½
¼5½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 116 rFkk 32 & /kkjk 116 ds v/khu 'kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr & [kljk esa ;k fdlh vU; Hkw&vfHkys[k esa Áfof"V lacaËkh fookn & ;fn ekeyk /kkjk 108 ds v/khu vkrk gS rc ,slk fookn /kkjk 116 ds vËkhu xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk & /kkjk 32 ds v/khu 'kfDr Á;ksx djus ds fy, /kkjk 116 ck/kd ugha gks ldrhA ¼iSjk 20½
¼6½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 50] 32 rFkk 251 & /kkjk 32 ds v/khu 'kfDr Á;qDr djus ds fy, ifjlhek dk fook|d & mi[kaM vf/kdkjh }kjk dysDVj dks Áfrosnu Hkstk x;k fd l{ke Ákf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds fcuk] fuLrkjh rkykc HkwfeLokeh vf/kdkjksa esa vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k gS & /kkjk 32 ds vËkhu dysDVj ds varfje vkns'k ls rkykc ljdkjh rkykc ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k & HkwfeLokeh dks dkj.k crkvks Lkwpuk tkjh fd varfje vkns'k dks D;ksa LFkk;h fd;k tk, & /kkjk 50] /kkjk 32 ds ln`'k ugha & /kkjk 50 ykxw djus ds fy, le; lhek ykxw dh xbZ & mls /kkjk 32 ds v/khu 'kfDr Á;ksx djus ds fy, ykxw ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 1995 jk fu 315 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½] 1997 jk fu 432 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½ rFkk 1998 jk fu 19 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21 ls 25½
¼7½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & /kkjk 50 & LoÁsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k & 180 fnol dh dkykof/k & ,slh vof/k dh x.kuk djus ds fy, vkjaHk fcanq & voSËkrk] vukSfpR;rk ;k vfu;ferrk dh tkudkjh dh rkjh[k gSA 2010 jk fu 409 % 2010 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 77 ¼mPp U;k;ky; iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] 2012 jk fu 246 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½ rFkk ¼1993½ lIyhŒ ¼2½ ,l lh lh 497 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21 ls 25½
¼8½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 115 & foca/k ;k opu foca/k dk fl}kar & ykxw gksuk & jkT; ml lhek rd v/;/khu ugha ftl lhek rd O;fDr ;k ÁkbosV fuxe & vU;Fkk] tgka yksd drZO; varoZfyr gS] og 'kklu esa viuh 'kfDr dk Á;ksx djus esa vlgk; gks ldrk gS & foca/k dk fl}kar ykxw ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼1973½ 2 ,l lh lh 650 vuqlfjrA 2013 ¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 573 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 26 ,oa 27½
¼9½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & dkj.k crkvks lwpuk ds fo#) fjV ;kfpdk & pykus ;ksX; gksuk & tgka rF;ksa dk vUos"k.k vko';d gS & fjV ;kfpdk xzg.k ugha dh tkuk pkfg, & ;kph dks dkj.k crkvks lwpuk dk mÙkj ÁLrqr djus dk funs'k fn;k x;kA ¼2004½ 3 ,l lh lh 440 rFkk ¼2015½ 6 ,l lh lh 557 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 28 ls 32½
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S.32 -- scope of powers
-- is wide to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court -- expression "nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect inherent power" -- is used as legislative device to give inherent or extra ordinary power to authority/Court. [Para 17
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S.32 -- Civil P. C., 1908 -- S.151 -- S.32 is pari materia to S.151 of CPC -- power under section 32 is much wider -- no specific provision under Code of 1959 which prohibits revenue Court to invoke power under section 32 of Code of 1959. AIR 1970 SC 997 and (2004)11 SCC 168 followed. [Para 17
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss.32 and 116 -- difference between -- power under section 32 is much wider than nature of remedy available under section 116 -- S. 32 is not in conflict to S. 116. AIR 2003 SC 1659 distinguished. [Para 17
(4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S.117 -- entries of land records -- shall be presumed to be correct -- legal presumption -- is rebuttable -- S.117 does not dispense with proof of fact projected in khasra entries -- such revenue entries are not conclusive proof -- genuineness, correctness and legality of such entries can be examined by competent authority. 1986 RN 23 (HC) relied on. [Paras 17 & 19
(5) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 116 and 32 -- scope of powers u/s. 116 -- dispute regarding entry in khasra or any other land record -- if matter is covered under section 118 then such dispute cannot be entertained under section 116 -- S. 116 cannot be impediment for exercising power under section 32. [Para 20
(6) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 50, 32 and 251 -- issue of limitation for exercising power under section 32 -- report sent by SDO to Collector that without order of competent authority, Nistari tank recorded in Bhumiswami rights -- by interim order of Collector under section 32, tank recorded as Government tank -- show cause notice issued to Bhumiswami that why interim order be not be made permanent -- S. 50 not analogous to S.32 -- time limit made applicable for applicability of S.50 -- same cannot be applied for exercising power under section 32. 1995 RN 315 (HC), 1997 RN 432 (HC) and 1988 RN (HC) referred to. [Paras 21 to 25
(7) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 50 -- suo motu revision -- period of 180 days -- starting point for counting of such period -- is the date of knowledge of illegality, impropriety or irregularity. 2010 RN 409 = 2010 (3) JLJ 77 (HC-FB), 2012 RN 246 (HC) and (1993) Suppl. (2) SCC 497 referred to. [Paras 21 to 25
(8) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 115 -- doctrine of estoppel or promissory estoppel -- applicability -- State is not subject to same extent as individual or private corporation -- otherwise it might be rendered helpless to assert its power in Government, when public duty is involved -- doctrine of estoppel cannot be made applicable. (1973)2 SCC 650 followed. 2013(2) MPLJ 573 referred to. [Paras 26 & 27
(9) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- writ petition against show cause notice -- maintainability -- where investigation into facts is necessary -- writ petition should not be entertained -- petitioner directed to file reply of show cause notice. (2004)3 SCC 440 and (2015) 6 SCC 557 followed. [Paras 28 to 32
1. This common order will dispose of Writ Petition No. 16992/2011, Writ Petition No. 20504/2014 and Writ Petition No. 23/2015. The facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 16992/2011. The petitioner, a widow aged about 75 years of age, has filed this petition aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 21.5.2010 and order dated 21.5.2010 cumulatively marked as Annexure P-1. By said notice, the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why in exercise of power under section 251 read with section 32 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (Code), the petitioner’s land described in the notice be not permanently recorded as Government “Medh/Pond”. In addition, an order dated 21.5.2010 is passed whereby provisionally or as an interim measure, the said land was directed to be registered as Government “Pond/Bheeta” and concerned Tehsildar was directed to correct the revenue record. The petitioner was directed to show cause as to why this interim order dated 21.5.2010 should not be made absolute. The petitioner was directed to submit his defence alongwith the relevant documents.
2. Shri P.N. Pathak and Shri Sanjay Seth, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are lawful titleholder/bhumiswamy of these lands. Shri Pathak by taking this Court to the pleadings of the petition urged that petitioner is the owner in possession of land bearing khasra Nos. 20, area 3.83 acre, 19, area 0.69 acre and 28, area 1.83 acre. The total land of these three numbers comes to 6.35 acres situated in village Saokhi. The petitioner purchased this land from Shri Kishorilal Agrawal vide sale-deed dated 18.3.1985 Annexure P-3. The mutation panji dated 12.4.1986 reflects the name of Kishorilal. The petitioner has placed reliance on “Rin Pustika” Annexure P-5 and relevant khasra entries from 1964-65 to 1996-97 filed as Annexure P-9.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the then prevailing Rewa Land Revenue and Tenancy Code, 1935 (Code of 1935) an “Intjam Guard Book” was prepared which contains the name of Kishorilal. The said entry was made on the direction of ‘Pawaidar’ who was statutorily recognized to undertake aforesaid exercise. By taking this Court to the relevant document Annexure P-6 (page 30), Shri Pathak urged that the patta was granted in favour of Kishorilal by the order of competent authority. These documents are more than 60 years old and cannot be called in question/doubted. The ownership and possession of Kishorilal from 1951-52 till 1985 is clear from the aforesaid revenue record. After 1985, the petitioner became owner and is in possession of land in question.
4. The petitioner has assailed the impugned notice/order of Collector on the ground that in the light of Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2010(5) MPHT 137 (Ranveer Singh and others v. State of MP), the power of revision can be exercised within a reasonable time. The Full Bench calculated that reasonable time to be 180 days within which revisional power can be exercised. Shri Pathak made an attempt to draw parallel between section 32 and section 50 of the Act and contended that both these powers which are analogous in nature can be exercised within a reasonable time. The exercise of power after more than half century is impermissible and runs contrary to the dicta of Full Bench judgment in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra). The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per a conjoint reading of sections 157 and 158(d)(i) of the Code, the petitioner is the bhumiswamy and impugned orders issued against her are without authority of law. It is submitted that a title which is being enjoyed by the petitioner cannot be disturbed in the manner it is sought to be done by the Collector. Reliance is placed on AIR 1970 SC 997 (Nainsingh v. Koonwarjee and others). Section 117 of the Code is relied upon to contend that there exists a presumption about the correctness of the revenue entries. The petitioner has filed various re
