Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Amar Nath (Kesharwani), J.
Yogesh Kumar Tamrakar S/O Shankar Prasad Tamrakar - Appellant
Versus
The State Of M.P. Through Collector - Respondent
Second Appeal No.1114 of 2009
Decided On : 15-03-2024
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 41 fuŒ 27 & f}rh; vihy esa vfrfjä lk{; & dc eatwj fd;k tk ldrk gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; d¢ le{k dysDVj d¢ vkns'k dh çekf.kr çfrfyfi çLrqr ugÈ dh tk ldh & f}rh; vihy esa çLrqr dh xÃ] ftls bl vkèkkj ij vk{ksfir fd;k x;k fd lquokà dk volj çnku ugÈ fd;k & bl vkns'k dk voyac çR;FkÊ us Òh fy;k & vihy d¢ U;k;fu.kZ;u d¢ fy, vkns'k egRoiw.kZ ,oa vko';d & y¨d nLrkost & vfÒys[k ij fy;k x;kA ¼iSjk 7½
¼2½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 50 & Loçsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k 'kfä ç;qä djus d¢ fy, ifjlhek & tkudkjh ds fnukad ls 180 fnol & Øsrk dk ukekarj.k 3-1-1981 d¨ fd;k x;k & 1993 esa lhekadu Òh fd;k x;k & mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¢ çfrosnu ij dysDVj }kjk 15-7-1994 d¨ vkns'k ikfjr & iw.kZ U;k;ihB d¢ fu.kZ; esa ;Fkk micafèkr ;qfä;qä le; ;k ifjlhek d¢ Òhrj d¨Ã dkjZokbZ ugÈ dh xà & /kkj.kk dh tk ldrh gS fd ;g jktLo çkfèkdkfj;¨a dh tkudkjh esa Fkk & dysDVj dk vkns'k voSèk ,oa fofèk dh n`f"V ls n¨"kiw.kZ gS & vikLr fd;kA 2010 jkfu 409 % 2010 ¼3½ ts,yts 77 ¼mPp U;k;ky;&iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 20] 21 ,oa 28½
¼3½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 50¼5½ & fgrc) O;fä d¨ lwpuk fn, fcuk vkns'k ikfjr & ,slk vkns'k voSèk] fofèk dh n`f"V ls n¨"kiw.kZ rFkk uSlfxZd U;k; d¢ fl)kar d¢ çfrdwy gS & vikLr fd;kA ¼2006½ 7 ,llhlh 800A ¼iSjk 22 ,oa 24½
¼4½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 165¼7&[k½ & ykxw g¨uk & vihykFkÊ us jftLVªhÑr foØ; foys[k ls Òwfe Ø; dh & vihykFkÊ d¢ uke ij ukekarj.k g¨ x;k & Loçsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k esa] vihykFkÊ d¨ lwpuk fn, fcuk] dysDVj }kjk Òwfe bl vkèkkj ij ljdkjh Ĩf"kr dj nh xà fd foØ; èkkjk 165¼7&[k½ d¢ mYyaÄu esa Fkk & foØ; d¨ foØsrk ;k mld¢ okfjlksa }kjk vk{ksfir ugÈ fd;k x;k & vihykFkÊ us gd dh Ĩ"k.kk rFkk LFkk;h O;kns'k d¢ fy, ,oa dysDVj d¢ vkns'k d¨ vikLr djkus d¢ fy, flfoy okn çLrqr fd;k & [kkfjt fd;k x;k & çFke vihy Òh [kkfjt dh xà & ;g lkfcr ugÈ fd;k x;k fd Òwfe iV~Vs ij nh xà Fkh & vihykFkÊ ln~Òkfod Øsrk gS ,oa 40 o"kZ ls vfèkd le; ls mldk dCtk gS & vihykFkÊ d¢ i{k esa foØ; vkjaHk ls gh 'kwU; ugÈ & fupys U;k;ky;¨a d¢ vkns'k rFkk dysDVj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 15-7-1994 vikLr fd,A ¼2000½ 6 ,llhlh 402] ¼2008½ 10 ,llhlh 697] ¼2001½ 2 ,llhlh 498] ¼2007½ 6 ,llhlh 186] fjV vihy Øekad 345 lu~ 2020 fu.kÊr fnukad 11-5-2020 rFkk çdh.kZ vihy Øekad 314 lu~ 2015 fu.kÊr fnukad 17-7-2015 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 27 ,oa 28½
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 41 R. 27 -- additional evidence in second appeal -- when can be allowed -- certified copy of order of Collector could not be filed before trial Court -- filed in second appeal, which was challenged on ground that opportunity of hearing was not extended -- respondent also relied on that order -- order important and necessary for adjudication of appeal -- public document -- taken on record. [Para 6]
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 50 -- limitation for exercising suo motu revisional power -- 180 days from date of knowledge -- mutation of purchaser made on 3.1.1981 -- demarcation also carried out in the year 1993 -- on report of SDO, order passed by Collector on 15.7.1994 -- no action taken within reasonable time or limitation as provided in judgment of Full Bench -- it can be presumed that it was in knowledge of revenue authorities -- order of Collector is illegal and bad in law -- set aside. 2010 RN 409 = 2010 (3) JLJ 77 (HC-FB) relied on. [Paras 20, 21 & 22]
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 50(5) -- order passed without providing hearing opportunity to interested person -- such order is illegal, bad in law and against principle of natural justice -- set aside. (2006) 7 SCC 800. followed. [Paras 22 & 24]
(4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 165(7-b) -- applicability -- appellant purchased land by registered sale deed -- mutation took place in name of appellant -- in suo motu revision, without notice to appellant, land declared as Government land by Collector on ground that sale was in contravention of section 165(7-b) -- sale was not challenged by seller or his legal heirs -- appellant filed civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and setting aside order of Collector -- dismissed -- first appeal also dismissed -- it was not proved that land was granted on lease -- appellant is bona fide purchaser and is in possession for more than 40 years -- sale deed in favour of appellant not void ab initio -- orders of Courts below and order dated 15.7.1994 passed by Collector set aside. (2000) 6 SCC 402, (2008) 10 SCC 697, (2001) 2 SCC 498, (2007) 6 SCC 186, W.A. No. 345 of 2020 decided on 11.5.2020 and M.A. No. 314 of 2015 decided on 17.7.2015 referred to. [Paras 27 & 28]
JUDGMENT :
Amar Nath (Kesharwani), J.
This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16/02/2009 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Satna, District Satna (M.P.) in Civil Appeal No.59-A/2003, whereby learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18/02/2003 passed by IVth Civil Judge, Class-II, Satna, District Satna (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.228-A/1999, whereby the suit filed by appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, possession holder and to declare that the order dated 15/07/1994 passed by Collector, Satna in Revenue Case No.5A- 19/93-94 and order dated 18/07/1994 passed by Tehsildar Raghurajnagar in Revenue Case No.246A/6A/93-94 are illegal and void against the interest of the appellant/plaintiff and permanent injunction against respondent that neither he do any kind of interference in possession of the appellant/plaintiff himself, nor do it through any of his employee, in respect of land bearing Khasra No.91/6/2 area 2.00 acre, situated at Mauja Sonora Chek Utaili, Tehsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna (M.P.), here-in- after referred to as "suit property" alleging that he purchased the suit property from Bhadaiya Charmkar by registered sale deed (Ex.P-1) dated 15/12/1980 for a consideration of Rs.4,000/- (Four thousand) and since then he is in possession of the suit property and the suit land has also been mutated in his name vide order dated 03/01/1981 passed by Tehsildar Raghurajnagar, District Satna (M.P.) and the same has been demarcated in the year 1993 and report was submitted to the Court of Tehsildar, Raghurajnagar, District Satna, who after finding the same to be valid and as per law, ordered to confirm the demarcation report. The boundaries of the suit property is mentioned in the plaint map. It was further averred in the plaint that on 28/10/1998 when appellant/plaintiff approached the concerned Patwari for obtaining the copy of khasra report, he came to know that his name has been deleted and instead of his name, the name of respondent/defendant was recorded. Upon enquiring the same from Patwari, he came to know that the concerned Collector vide order dated 18/07/1994 has removed the name of appellant/plaintiff from the revenue record and recorded the name of respondent/defendant (State of M.P.) without giving any notice to the appellant/plaintiff. Hence, order dated 15/07/1994 passed by the Collector in Revenue Case No.5A/19/93-94 is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Appellant/plaintiff has further pleaded that he has sent a notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the respondent, but the respondent have neither replied to the same, nor corrected the khasra entries in favour of appellant/plaintiff. Hence, he filed the Civil Suit before the trial Court for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent/State.
3. Respondent/defendant opposed the case of the appellant/plaintiff by filing written statement alleging that the suit property was allotted to Bhadaiya Charmkar for agricultural purpose and said land was sold to the appellant/plaintiff in contravention of Section 165(7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, therefore, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the appellant/plaintiff, Collector, Satna passed the order dated 15/07/1994 and removed the name of appellant/plaintiff in the revenue record and recorded it in the name of State, hence prayed that the suit of the appellant/plaintiff be dismissed.
4. Learned trial Court framed the issues and after considering the material available on record, dismissed the Civil Suit vide judgment dated 18/02/2003 holding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Being aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, appellant
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation period for exercising suo-motu revisional power and the validity of a sale deed executed without permission from the Collector.
The delay of 11 years in exercising suo motu powers renders such actions arbitrary, violating established legal rights under registered sale deeds.
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
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
