^ C"'A z CF0000110405 /^ "\ .< II^ THE HIS-i COURT OF MaDHY&PRADESH AT JABALPOR ,.^ ^> .^^W-sc. Petit.i.on No.M ^^5 of 1993 . .. • ^Q-^- £S^ ^ -^ ^"' ^s>^^ -3?' ^^/ ^~?^: '.•--e^ versus aESpONDEHTS. 1. Board of Revenue Madhya Pradesb, Moti Idaha.l, Gwalior. 2. Snt. Sajwatl Bai, w±fe of Bhagoli Gond, resident of village Sandongri, tahsil Kbairggarh,distt» Rajnandgaon* 3. State of Madbya Pradesh,throngh the Collector, Rajnandgaon* , g.(t?<7^?: s^ PETITXON UNDER ARTXCLBS 22f/OB 1HE CONSTITUTION OS '-?• 3 INDIA. 7 'Rie petitioner,abc»ve iiamed, begs to sabEBlt .*••' ;^'^^::-'^^-^-;.r:^^ii^^L^3i^i^i^^^^;-^/^^^^^^^^^'^l'^^-t'^]^ lii '.^'^-^•s.^ssw^sss -f3~;.i^ v:."WS^SS':w •^.•»J v -^<;;-l;^1 ,- ^t^s'-" 2. , Laxmib|ii.:|igWi||§g| years D/o ShefSingli"W7o Kumar SingIiR/o Vill. Kopenagaon Tah. Kharagarfa, Distt. Rajnandgaon 3. Ramsingh aged about 4<5years S^ SherSu^h, R^ Sandogiri Tah. Khariagarh,Distt. Rajnandgaon :y' 1 i .^m-a; : •-;.':-;-:::^:-,:."'....' ^^t.: -. •..:^^^^^^^^^^^ <£^''tl4. Sunutraaged about 45 years l^<-^s®si -' ^ssi'a^Es »t-^ii ^ass' m ::AS»;S11»1(!(%SB'1 R.i'^SI SsSS 'i-^sSf^ F45S^ ^a.s'waigyQ 'wsf-:^:^'^- .'??-^:? ^ ^;^1:^^;^!'!1;^ 'I^ ^'SSS:es /'•v'^'^'.^'' a D^SfaeF^itgh,^^Dlianusfa i^eroiait/o^j|lla^i)amardih ^T^KSzara^S^WsWMsgDSS!^^ 5y -^KnsS^3^^8^^42yeaK^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ , i^ I^ »j|»^|Bffla||^gEiiB^?ongai-g^^...,^,. Distt.l^naydgaon 6. Gaiigotri aged about40 years | J ^ Sher Singh W/o Pannanand iri3oog£ffgarh :;^l®fcysb&^ij^S^SSa.s, '' ':~SKSS~'ST^SS^^W •'^.»v^^'s'KSXSS~s~al MfeiNS:'KsiStfjiB:^:^fc •-. •:.r..-:,: i. :'WKSSS^Sisyi^!c^35^eai^^,. ,J;:; D/oSyer SinghW/6 Kanilesti | i^.il$®IS^Sijl:^:RIO:ltBt^iah-:Khar^arh'' %;ia^j|i@SB2SBtJi)iNWIiaiiwfci^.^^ t:^|Sg^^^l,8.:J,':Che^.ag^^out32y^ S/oSher Sin^iR/o Sandogari Tah. IQiairagarii, Dist. R^nandgaon 9. Huleshi agedabout 30 years D/o SheySiDgfriW/o Tikam Verma RTpSalom (Dfaara), Tahsil Dongaigarii,iDist.Rajaandgaon ^^^ s o, HIGH COURT OF CHEIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 4259 of 1993 Petitioners Lalit Bai W/o Sher Singh & Others RespQndents Versus Board of Revenue Madhya Pradesh & Others Writ Petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia fSin2le Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate for petitioners. Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri PK Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for State. ORALORDER (Passed on 21stday ofAugust, 2009) I.A. Nos. 1 & 2, applications for taking documents/additional documents on record, are ordered as prayed for. 1. The instant petition is directed against th.e order dated 05.01.93, passed by the Board ofRevenue in revision case No. 103/5/90 whereby the Board of Revenue in second revision filed by the respondent No. 2 herem set aside the order dated 08.02.90, passed in case No. 313/A-23 (B)/88-89 by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, and affirmed the orders passed by Collector, Rajnandgaon, on 31.12.88 in revenue case No. 182/A-23 (B)/87-88 and order dated 25.06.88 passed in revenue case No. 234/A-23/87-88 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kfaairagarh (for short 'SDO'). 2. The brief facts of the case as per petitioners are that, the original petitioner purchased the disputed land from respondent ——-^T2J 3. ). No. 2 vide registered sale-deed dated 28.06.63 (Annexure/B) after obtaining due permission from Additional Collector, Durg under section 165 (6) ofthe MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') and obtained its possession. The same stands mutated in his name on 09.08.64. On an application filed by the respondent No. 2, the SDO registered a case under section 170-B of the Code against the original petitioner and show cause notice was issued. In reply to show cause notice, the original petitioner filed a photocopy of pennission granted by Collector, Durg, and a copy of sale-deed, and submitted that the transaction was bonafide. Both the parties led their evidences. The SDO, drawn a presumption that the original petitioner is in possession of the agricultural land without any lawful authority as he failed to notify the information as required under section 170-B(1) of the Code within the period specified therein, and passed the order reverting the land in favour of respondent No.2. In an appeal filed by the original petitioner, the Collector affimied the order passed by the SDO. The original petitioner went in revision before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, and the Additional Commissioner, exercising jurisdiction under section 50 ofthe Code, set aside the orders passed by the SDO as well as by the Collector by holding that the original petitioner purchased fhe disputed land after obtaining due permission fi-om Collector and the transaction, is bonafide and /"^ ^•- i';' .^ no fraud has been practiced by the original petitioner upon the respondent No. 2. Against this order, the Board ofRevenue has passed the impugned order. Hence this petition. Shri Anand Shukla, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. The original petitioner was bonafide purchaser of disputed land. The same was purchased after obtaming due permission of Collector, by way of registered sale-deed and the SDO and Collector have passed the order merely on the ground that petitioner did not notify all the information to the SDO as to how he has come in possession of such land within the period prescribed there for, which is contrary to provisions of Section 170-B of the Act, and also nms counter to the judgments of Division Bench's in cases ofDhirendra Nath Sharma v. State of MP and Another1 and Atmaram & Another v. State of MP . The Additional Commissioner, after considering all aspects of the matter, has rightly set aside the order passed by the SDO and Collector, and therefore, fhe order passed by the Board in second revision filed by therespondent No. 2 is patently illegal. He would further submit that as per prosio (i)(c) to Section 50 (1) ofthe Code, a revision against an order passed in revision by the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner in respect of cases under S. 170-B, are ban-ed and therefore, the ' 1985 MPU 786 21995 MPU 633 order passed by the Board of Revenue is itself without jurisdiction, and deserves to be set aside. Per contra, Shri Ajay Mishra, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 would submit fhat the SDO and Collector has rightly passed the order reverting back the land to the respondent No. 2, but the Additional Commissioner went wrong in setting aside the said order, and therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is well reasoned order and deserves to be upheld. He would further submit that although under section 50 ofthe Code, the second revision is barred but the order passed by the Board ofRevenue should be constmed as order passed while exercising powers of review under section 51 of the Code and thus, no jurisdictional illegality was committed by the Board of Revenue while passing the order impugned, and the petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, perused the record and order impugned. The core issue raised in this petition is whether or not the order passed by the Board of Revenue exercising revisional power under section 50 ofthe Code agaiast the revisional order passed by the Additional Commissioner under section 50 of the Code is withoutjurisdiction. The relevant facts and pleadings of the respective parties have already been mentioned in detail in the foregoing paragraphs. Before considering the rival submissions made by the parties, it A .- would be appropriate to advert to the relevant part of the provisions ofsection 50 and 51 ofthe Code reads as under : 50. Revision. (1) The Board or the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner may at any time on its/his motion or on the application made by any party for the purpose of satisfying itself/himself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proeeedmgs of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it/him call for, and examine the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by such officer, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit: Provided that- [(i) no application for revision shall be entertained- (a). against an order appealable under this Code; (b). against an order of the Settlement Commissioner under section 210; (c). against an order passed in revision by the Commissioner or the Settlement Commissioner in respect of cases under section 170-B, nor shall any such order be revised by the Board on its own motion]; (ii), 51. Review of orders (1). The Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its/his own motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as iVhe thinks fit; Provided that- [(i) if the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Collector or Settlement 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 a Collector or Settlement Officer, proposes to review any order, whether passed by 'i' .' • i 10. 11. 12. himself or by any predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction m writingoffhe authority to whom he is unmediately subordinate;] A bare perusal of secti&n 50 (l)(i)(c) would reveal that the second revision against the order passed in a revision by the Commissioner in respect of cases under section 170-B is speci&cally and expressly barred by the Code and thus, the order passedby the Board ofRevenue is withoutjurisdiction. A bare pemsal ofsection 51 oftheCode would reveal that the Board ofRevenue can review its own orders and not the orders passed by any revenue officer subordinate to it. Pemsal of order impugned would also reveal that same has been passed by the Board ofRevenue by exercising revisional jurisdiction, and therefore, in flie considered opinion of this court, the order passed by the Board ofRevenue is patently illegal and without jurisdiction and deserees to be set aside on this count alone. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 05.01.93, passed by the Board ofRevenue is hereby set aside and orde&dated 08.02.90, passed by the Additional Commissioner is restored. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^