W.P. No. 2840/2000 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava W.P. No. 2840/2000 ....PETITIONER: M/s Birla Corporation Limited (formerly known as Birla Jute & Industries Ltd.) A Public Limited Company duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Birla Building, 9/1 R.N. Mukherjee Road, CALCUTTA 700 001 (W.B.) Versus ....RESPONDENTS:1. State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Revenue, Through it's Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. The Collector, Dist. Satna 485 001 (MP) 3. The Mining Officer, Mining Branch, District Collectorate, Satna 485 001 (MP) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner : Shri Atul Choudhary, Advocate Respondents: Shri Harish Agnihotri, Government Advocate ORDER (05/01/2011) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the validity and pregnability of the impugned order dated 21.8.1998 Annexure P-8 passed by W.P. No. 2840/2000 -2- learned Board of Revenue in Case No. Misc.10-2/Nig/78/95 directing Collector, Satna to hear the matter in review. The only contention but as strong like a steel rod has been put forth by Shri Choudhary in his usual vehemence that the order of Board of Revenue has been passed de-hors the maxim audi alteram partem since opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner before permitting Collector to review the matter. The contention of learned counsel is that order was passed in favour of the petitioner by the Collector on 20.7.1995 but thereafter the then Collector, Satna thought it proper to get that order reviewed and hence proceedings were initiated by the Board of Revenue in that regard. 2. On bare perusal of Section 51 of the Code this Court finds that before passing any order by the Board it was mandatory to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since admittedly the notices were not issued to the petitioner and it has been directed to Collector to get the order reviewed under Section 51 of the Land Revenue Code, according to me the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be allowed to remain sustain and I have no option except to set it aside and accordingly I do so. 3. Resultantly this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Annexure P-8 dated 21.8.1998 is hereby quashed and Board of Revenue is directed to hear the petitioner before passing any order. Since the matter is quite old, the parties are hereby directed to appear before Board of Revenue on 1st March, 2011. W.P. No. 2840/2000 -3- The Board of Revenue after hearing the petitioner may pass fresh order in accordance to the law. This petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE S/