W HIGH COURT OF JUDIC‘ATURE CHHATT¥$GARH : E£LASPUR $1N$LE §ENCH : HON’ELE SH§i SR. NAYAK, 3.1. Misc. Patiticn No. 278Q OF 1S92 PET!T!GNER Gopa! Prasad Shrivastava ssn of Shri Kuideep Sahai, resident of Ramanujganj, Tehsi! Ramanujganj, Tehsil Ramaaujgam', district $arguja. Vs. REsPONDENTS 1. State of Madhya Pradesh through the Department of Land Revenue, Gcvt. of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 3. Sub-Divisional Qfficey, Ramanujgang, DEstrict Sarguja. 4. Commissioner, BHaspur Divésion, Biiaspur. 2. .Coiiector, 8arguja, Sarguje. Present: Shri PP. Sahu, !earned counsei fmthe pefitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, learned Dy. GA. for the State ORAL QRDER (Passed on 22 a June 2006) The factua! matrix of the case, in brief, is as ioiiews: according to the petitiener, the'father of the petitianer Kuideep $ahai, by name, had encraached 5.088 hectares of Government iand‘comprised in Khasra No. 78/4, 6?!37, 67,86 and 6.7/43 situate in Ramanajganj, Tahsii 4 Ramanujgani, District Surguja, which iande are (hereinafter Shortiy X referred to as the ”Schedule Lands" ) in the year 1953 and he was in actuat possession and enjoyment of the schedule lands. it is aiso stated that he had built a pucca house and well in the scheduie tends. Kuideep Sahai died in the year 1973 and Thereafterwamls, the petitioner has been in possession of the schedule lands. (2) The petitioner made an appiication to the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramanujganj, District Surguja, the third respondent herein, for grant of the schedule fands. The $.D.O. registered the case i.e. No. 20!A-3/73~80 and by his order dated 11-03-1980 granted tha schedule Eands to the petitioner. When the matter stood thus, the CoHector Surguja, Dismct $urguja mitiated suo mom proceedings to revise the order of the third respondent dated 1i-O3-1980. The petitioner objected to the initiation of the proceeding by the Coitector by niing his reply dated 25-094 984 as per Annexure P/3. However, the second respondent the Coiiector by his order dated 22-05-1990 set aside the order of the S.D.O. dated 11-03- 1980. The petitioner preferred an appeai to the Commissioner of ’i Revenue, who by his order dated 21—01-1991 (Annexure Pf5), dismissed the appeal. Thereafterwards, even the revision preferred by the petitioner to the Board of Revenue was dismissed, as per, Annexure Pl? dated 20-05-1992. Feeling aggrieved by the above orders of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue; the present writ petition is tiied. (3) i have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opinion of the Collector, Commissioner and the Board of Revenue that at the reievant point of time the S.D.O. had tacked legal competency to grant 5.088 hectares of land in favour of the petitioner and that he had authority to grant the land to an extent of five acres only, is factuatty incorrect. it was pointed out that though such specific plea was raised before the authorities heiow, that question was not fairly dealt with by them. it was pointed out that the Board of Revenue quite curiously in its order has pointed out that the circular dated 24-08-1979 does not prohibit the Collector from exercising. the power of revision suo motu and that it has summarily rejected the jurisdictionai issue raised by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, sought to sUpport the impugned order. Kg! (4) ! find perversity in the reasoning of ihe Board of Revenue. A copy of the circular dated 24~08—1S79 which is produced at pages 39 to 43 as Annexure Pi8, would elearly show ’zhat the District Coiiector has been empowered to revise Ithe order passed ‘by the Naib Tahsiidar and Tahsiidar oniy, and as per the said circuiar the orders passed by the S.D.O. souid be revised suo mote only by the State Government. This position is not contested by the iearned Government Advocate. Therefore, it is a clear case of misreading of the oircuiar dated 24—08- 1979 placed before it by the Board of Revenue in that view ot the matter: the orders passed by the District Collector, the Commissioner as well as the Board ct Revenue can not be sustained. in that View of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. No costs. However, it is made clear that this order shaii not come in the way of the statutory authorities from taking appropriate steps/actions against the petitioner if the grant made in his favour by the S.D.O., Ramanujganj is otherwise illegal, in accordance with lawn * dl / s — Chief J‘Etice V a