Back
GWALIOR BENCH
AMBRISH MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 245 2023
A review petition under Section 51 of the MPLRC is maintainable even in the absence of specific grounds, and the authority must pass a reasoned order upon receiving an application for review.
Headnote:
REVIEW PETITION - SECTION 51 OF M.P. LAND REVENUE CODE - MAINTAINABILITY - GROUNDS
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a review petition against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, dismissing his review petition without adjudicating the controversy, holding that the provisions of Section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) were not met.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and remanded the matter back for adjudication of the appeal afresh, holding that the order was non-speaking and against the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the review petition was maintainable under Section 51 of the MPLRC.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that Section 51 of the MPLRC does not lay down any specific grounds for maintaining a review petition, and that the authority must pass a reasoned order upon receiving an application for review. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed, which emphasized the importance of recording reasons in judicial and quasi-judicial decisions.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and remanded the matter back for adjudication of the appeal afresh.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 5th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 245 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
AMBRISH MISHRA S/O BHOOPKISHORE MISHRA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BASANT KI GALI IN FRONT OF
RAGHUNATH JI MANDIR, TEHSIL CHANDERI, DISTT.
ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRALOK KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF REVENUE,
STATE OF M.P., VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER TEHSIL CHANDERI
DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
TEHSILDAR CHANDERI DISRICT ASHOKNAGAR.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
COLLECTOR DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEVENDRA CHAUBEY - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred against the order dated 28.11.2022 passed in review jurisdiction
by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division whereby, the Review
1
Petition preferred against the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by Addl.
Commissioner in Appeal No.94/22-23 was dismissed without adjudicating the
controversy holding that the contents of provisions of Section 51 of M.P. Land
Revenue Code since are not met out, the review petition is not maintainable.
Section 51 of MPLRC is quoted below.
"51. Review of orders. - (1) The Board or any Revenue Officer may, either suo
motu or on an application of any party interested, review any order passed by it or him, or
by any predecessor-in-office and pass such order in reference thereto as it or he may think
fit : Provided that -
(i) if the Commissioner, Collector or District Survey Officer thinks it necessary to
review any order which he has not himself passed, he shall first obtain the
sanction of the Board, and if an officer subordinate to the Collector or District
Survey Officer proposes to review an order, whether passed by himself or his
predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in writing of the Collector or
District Survey Officer to whom he is immediate subordinate;
(ii) no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the
parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order;
(iii) no order from which an appeal has been made, or which is the subject of any
revision proceedings shall, so long as such appeal or proceedings are
pending, be reviewed;
(iv) no order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be
reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings, and no
application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made
within forty-five days from the passing of the order".
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Section 51 of
the MPLRC does not lay any ground on which, a review can be maintained
rather, as soon as any application is moved before the authority for reviewing
the order, then the authority has to pass a reasoned order. Even otherwise, since
the second appeal has not been decided on merits, Review Petition on that
count, is maintainable.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that learned Addl.
Commissioner has rightly pointed out that the contents of provisions of Section
2
51 of MPLRC are not attracted so far as review petition is concerned,
therefore, dismissal of the Review Petition in the circumstances, is sustainable.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd.
and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 has held
as under:-
"( a ) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serv
