Shakuntala Devi vs Board of Revenue

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(MP) 395

¼mPp U;k;ky;½ o (HIGH COURT)
U;k- ;w-lh- ekgs’ojh
U.C. Maheshwari, J.
‘kdqUryk nsoh rFkk vU; fo- jktLo eaMy rFkk vU;
Shakuntala Devi and others v. Board of Revenue and others
fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 2160 lu~ 2013 ¼tcyiqj½% jktLo eaMy] e-iz- Xokfy;j }kjk iqujh{k.k Øekad 181&nks@03 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 22-5-2012 ds fo#)( fu.khZr fnukad 16-7-2013A
Writ Petition No. 2160 of 2013(Jabalpur): against order dated 22.5.2012 passed in Revision No. 181-II/03 by Board of Revenue, M.P. Gwalior; Decided on 16.7.2013.

Advocates:
Mh-,u- ‘kqDyk ;kphx.k dh vksj ls( LofIuy xkaxqyh izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 dh vksj ls( dq- uhye tk;loky izR;FkhZx.k Ø- 2 ls 7 dh vksj lsA
D.N. Shukla for petitioners; Swapnil Ganguly for respondent No. 1; Ku. Neelam Jaiswal for respondents No. 2 to 7.

Headnote:¼1½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 50] 44 rFkk 35 & iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr;ksa dh O;kfIr & ukekarj.k vkns’k ds fo#) mi[kaM vf/kdkjh ds le{k vihy & lh-ih-lh ds vkns’k 6 fu;e 16 ds v/khu vkosnu & ,sls vkosnu ij varfje vkns’k & ,sls vkns’k ds fo#) iqujh{k.k & nksuksa fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kj [kkfjt fd;k x;k & jktLo eaMy ds le{k iqu% iqujh{k.k & iqujh{k.k yafcr jgus ds nkSjku & vihy vuqifLFkfr esa [kkfjt dh xbZ & iqujh{k.k vlQy gks x;k & xq.kkxq.k ij vkns’k ikfjr dj ukekarj.k vkns’k vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 1986 jk fu 1 ¼mPp U;k-½ izHksfnrA 1999 jk fu 325 vkc}dj ughaA ¼iSjk 6 ls 12½

       ¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 109] 110 rFkk 50 & ukekarj.k dh ‘kfDr;k¡ & rglhynkj esa fufgr & ukekarj.k vkns’k ds fo#) mi[kaM vf/kdkjh ds le{k vihy & lh-ih-lh- ds vkns’k 6 fu;e 16 ds v/khu vkosnu & ,sls vkosnu ij varfje vkns’k & varfje vkns’k ds fo#) jktLo eaMy ds le{k iqujh{k.k & xq.kkxq.k ij vkns’k ikfjr ukekarj.k vkns’k vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 6 ls 11½

       ¼3½ ÁFkk & varfje vkns’k ds fo#) iqujh{k.k & xq.kkxq.k ij vkns’k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 6 ls 12½
       (1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 50, 44 and 35 -- scope of revisional powers -- appeal against mutation order before SubDivisional Officer -- application under order 6 rule 17 of CPC interim order on such application -- revision against such order -- dismissed by two Courts below -- again revision before Board of Revenue -- during pendency of revision -- appeal dismissed in default -- revision became infructuous -- mutation order cannot be set aside by passing order on merits. 1986 RN 1 (HC) distinguished. 1999 RN 325 not binding. [Paras 6 to 12
       (2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 109, 110 and 50 -- powers of mutation -- vested with Tahsildar -- appeal against mutation order before Sub Divisional Officer -- application under order 6 rule 16 of CPC interim order on such application -- revision before Board of Revenue against interim order -- mutation order cannot be set aside by passing order on merits. [Paras 6 to 11
       (3) Practice -- revision against interim order -- order on merits cannot be passed. [Paras 6 to 12

ORDER

1. The petitioners who were applicants in the initial Court of the Tahsildar have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ to quash the order dated 22.5.2012, (Ann.P-5), passed by the respondent No.1, Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision No. 181-Two/03.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the petitioners herein claiming themselves to be the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal had filed Revenue Case No.28- A-6/2000-2001 in the Court of Suhagpur under section 109 and 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, in short “The Code” for mutation of their names in the revenue record as Bhumswami of the disputed land at the place of late Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal.

3. After holding the proceeding in such Revenue Case No. 28-A-6-2000-2001, on consideration by allowing the application of the petitioners, their names were directed to be mutated in the records of right at the place of late Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal as Bhumiswami by the Tahsildar vide order dated 28.2.2001.

4. Subsequent to passing such order of mutation on coming to know about such mutation, the respondents No. 2 to 7, herein claiming themselves to be the natural heirs and legal representatives of Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal challenged such order of Tahsildar through Revenue Appeal No. 107/Appeal/2000-2001 before the Court of SDO, Suhagpur. In such appeal at various places, the petitioner No. 1 herein Shakuntala Devi (who was respondent No.1 in such appeal), was stated to be “Mad Person” and “Divorced Wife” of Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal and said Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal was stated to be a “Dump Person”, on which an application under Order 6, Rule 16 of CPC for appropriate direction to the respondents to delete and score out said words from the appeal memo was filed on behalf of the present petitioners. On consideration, vide interlocutory order dated 4.7.2001, (Ann. P-2), the SDO has allowed such application in part and directed the respondents No. 2 to 7 herein to delete the above mentioned words stated with respect of Smt. Shakuntala Devi from the appeal memo and such appeal was fixed for reply of applications as well as for arguments on 17.7.2001. In pendency of such appeal, said interlocutory order dated 4.7.2001 was challenged by the respondents No. 2 to 7 herein by way of Revenue Revision No. 118/Revision/2000-2001 in the Court of Collector, district Shahdol. On consideration, vide order dated 18.9.2001, (Ann. P-3), by affirming the order of SDO, such revision was dismissed, on which the respondents again filed Revenue Revision No. 64/Revision/2001-2002 in the Court of Upper Commissioner, Rewa Division challenging the order of Collector, Annexure P-3. On consideration, by affirming the order of Collector, such revision was also dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2002 (Ann. P.4) Such order of Commissioner was again challenged by the respondents herein before the Board of Revenue in Revision bearing No. 181-Two/03. In pendency of such revision the aforesaid Revenue appeal filed by the respondents No. 2 to 7 in the Court of S. D. O. was dismissed in default on non-appearance of the parties on 26.9.2009 and the same was not pending in any manner, inspite that, the Board of Revenue considering the impugned revision filed, only against the aforesaid interlocutory order of SDO, dated 4.7.2001, (Ann. P-2), affirmed by the Collector and Commissioner, instead to decide the sustainability of such order, vide impugned order, Annexure P-5, set aside all the orders of Subordinate Revenue Courts including the mutation order of Tahsildar and remitted back the matter to Tahsildar with a direction to decide afresh, on which the petitioners have come to this Court.

5. The counsel of the parties were heard at length, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record, including the papers placed by the respondents No. 2 to 7 after closing t