^' ^\^ .-•^-^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARjLAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO.J-<S^8 / 2002 PETITIONER ^* . \^^ , ^^y'^ \^y)'^ -.-<%~6^' ''^^^? <%:;^ ^ S.BPiARPOOR SINGH GREWAL AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, SON OF LATE SHRI KARTAR SINGH GREWAL, RESIDENT OF B-23, JASPREET AUTOMOBILES, NEW BOMBAY MARKET, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) VER S U S RESPONDENTS 1) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH : SECRETARY (REVENUE), D.K.S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) 2) COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) BASTAR DIVISION, BASTAR AT JAGDALPUR (C.G.) 3) COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), RAIPUR DIVISION, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) "•^.. 4) COLLECTOR BASTAR, DISTT. BASTAR, JAGDALPUR (CG) 5) TAHSILDAR JAGDALPUR, DISTT. BASTAR(C.G.) ^" WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTiCLES 2^/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND CERTIORAM...ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 1518 OF 2002 S. Bhai-poor Singh Grrewal Vs. State of Chattlsgaarh BB Othea-s ORDER Post for ^ /4/2005 Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PBTITION N0. 1318 OF 2Q02 8. Bharpoor Siagh Grewal Vs. State of Chattisgarh & Others Shri V.K. Pandey, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, Govemment Advocate for the rcspondcnts* Per Fakhruddin, J ORDBR Heard learaed counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner chaUenges the order dated 16-7-2002 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Commissioner. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Ex-Servicemaa and his father Late Shri Kartar Singh Grewal was also an Ex-Servicenian. The petitioner and his fatiier both were allotted 10 acrcs of laiid each bearing Khasra Nos. 106/19, 107 / 17 and 106/18. This was aUotted vide Annexure-P/4 to the petitioner and vide Annexure-P/5 to the petitioner's father. The lease was for five years with ^ renewal clause. It is stated that possession was taken and ^ after unproving it was made cultivable. The petitioner and his |lia——uwB—a- -4" ~--<t' father cultivated the land. While they were cultivatuig thc land, they applied for renewal and report of Revenue Officer was called for. The emergency was imposed on 26th June, 1975 and during this period the Collector took suo niotu action. This action was taken after inany years. The petitioner contends that he was arrested on 7-8-1975 and remained in jail till 25-8-1975, which is borne out from Annexiire-P/6 herein and during that period notices were served. The order passed by the Collector in suo motu case relating to the land of the petitioner on 25.08. 1975 is Annexure-P/7. When the petitioner came to know about that order he applied for ccrtified copy of the said order but the same was not supplied to him. He approached various authorities and ultimately he approached M.P. State Minority Commission. The Minority Commission made a recommendation to the Stete Govemment. The petitioner approached the Revenue Coraniissioner who held that it has no jurisdiction under R.B.C., which is reflected from order Aruiexui-e-P/8. The petitioner then filed a writ petition bearing W.P.No. 1310/2001, wliich came up tbr hearing belbre tliis Court on 11.12.2001, and this Court passed an order as under : alt is contended that the petitioner and his father who were Ex-servicemen were given land grants in 1968 (10 cicres each). However, some time during the emergency period in 1975, while the writ petiUoner was injail^ the lease in respect ofthe land came to be cancelled by respondent No.2. After the petitioner was relea^ed, he wanted to file an appeal and m this regard he requested for certifled true copy ofthe order ofcancellation. Unfortunately, no such copy was i&sued to him. At long last he approached M.P. State Minority Commission. As stated above a direction was issuedfor examining the matter on ment As nothing has been done in accordance with the directions issued by the Mmonty Commission, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking necessary direction to be issued to the State authority to decide the matter on merit Mr. Gautam Bhadun, leamed Govt Advocate prays for time tofile repty. Jam ofthe view that since some direction has already been issued, the State authority may examine the matter. In. the mean Ume, it has been stated that the father of the petitioner died in December, 1975. In my view itwill be fair that such matter is givenpriority. Iti the result, this petition is disposed ofwith a direction that the case of the writ petitioner shall be decided by the Commissioner, Revenue, Bastar. The petitioner shall approach, Commissioner, Bastar by flling a representation within 15 days from today together with a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the Commissioner, Revenue, Bastar, shall proceed to decide tfw matter after giving an opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner within a further period ofnot later than three months^ 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner subniitted that in coinpliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P<No, 1310/2001^ thc pctitioncr inadc a rcprcscntMion beforc fhe concemed authority, but the same was rejectecl. Hence the petitioner filed another writ petition before this Coiut bearing W.P.No.598/2002, which came up for hearmg on 12.07.2002. This Court passed the following order: <iSubsequent thereto, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the Commissioner, Bastar Diviswn, Bastar, who has disposed of the said representation on 26.02.2002. Jt has been obserued that as judicial order had already been passed by the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, he could not re-appreciate the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner has come before this Court by way ofthis petiUon. It is stated by leamed counsel for the State that during pendency of the writ petition, tfie Commissioner has mitiuted suo motu. proceedings for review ofhis order and the petitioner has been hearf^ on that quesUon. In this viezu of the matter^ the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this writ petition with Uberty to file afresh petitwn, if an occasion arises.a Thereafter vide order dated 16/7/02 the Commissioner while exercising powers under Sec. 51 of the Laad Revenue Code, 1959 again rejected the representation of the petitioner. 5. From a penisal of the record, it appeans that on 19.04.1968, the proceedings were started regarding allotment and the report froin Patwari was called. On 26.4.1968 the Patwari subniitted the report that 10 acrcs of land is availablc in the village for allotment and for that an application has been tlled by Shri Bhai-poor Singh, Ex. Serviceman/petitioner. On 28.6.1968 the Sarpanch and Patel ofthe village subinitted the report that they have no objection in allotment of the said land to thc pctitioncr. On 29.6.1968 thc ordcr was passcd by tlie Telisildai' du'ectuig tlie Patwail for uialdiig deiuai'catioii and for preparation of the map. On 14/8/1968, the Tehsildar issued an order for assessment of premium. On 28.1 1.1968, tlic Additional Collector^ Bastar District passed an order^ which is relevant and quoted below: X "Order passed under Section 60 of the M-PLR. Code, 1959. The proposed by the rent proposed by the Tahsildar wid verifled by the Supdt Land Records, Jagdalpur is hereby conftnned. Forwarded to the Tahsildar Jcxgdalpur for jurther action through the Sub Divisional Officer^ Jagdalpur^ After tlie approval of llic Addilioiial CoUeclor, ilie lease deed was entered mto on 6-12-1968 (Annexure-P/4). The petitioner developed t.he land and ciiltivated continuoiisly for seven years and acquu'ed Bhooiniswatiii rights as per clause 14 of the patta. The matter was suo motu reviewed. It. is contended that the suo motu rcview can be made by the authorities provided the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Collector or Settlement Offlcer thtnks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, he shaU first obtain the sanction of the Board and if an Officcr subordinatc to a Collcctor or Scttlcnicnt Offlccr proposes to review any order, whether passcd by hknself or by any predecessor, lie shall first obtain the sanction m writing of fhe aufhority to whom he is iminediately subordina-te. The Collector was not competent under Section 51(1) ofthe Land Revenue Code. 6. Section 51 of the Land Revcnue Code, 1959 is pertinent and quoted below: "Sl. Review of orders.-(l) The Board and every Revenue Officer may^ either on its/his own motuon or on the application ofany party interested review any order pctssed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order m reference thereto as it/he thinl^sflt Provided that - 6 (i) If the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Coltector or Settlement Officer thinks itnecessary to review any orde.- which he has not himself passed, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Board, and ifan officer subordinate to a Collector or Settlement Officer proposes to review any order^ whether passed by himselfor by any predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in writing ofthe authority to whom he is invnediately subordinate; fi-a) no order shall ba varied or reversed unle^s notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard m support ofsuch order; no orcier 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; (iii) no order ajfecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviezued except on the application ofa party to the proceedings, and no application for the revieiu of such order shall be entertavzed unless it is made within ninety days from the passmg of the order. (2) No order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Vofl908). (3) For the purposes of this section the Collector ^hall be deemed to be the successor in office ofany Revenue Officers who has left the district or who has ceased to exercise powers as a Revenue Officer and to whom there is no successor in the district. (4) An order which has been dealt with in appeal or on revision shall not be reviewed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the appellate or revisional authority. gr- 7. Leamed counsel for the petitioncr placed reliance upon the decisions of High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the case of Shiva ^hankcir Mandil vs, State of M.P. 8s Others reported in 1996 RN 137 (Para-13) and contended that the rights of Goveninient lessee under Section 181 ofthe Land Revenue Code cajinot be taken away by reviewing the order ^uo motu< Para 13 of the said judgnient is pertkiciit and is quoted below: "13. Lecimed counselfor the petitioner appears to be right in his submission that after grant of lease under the registered document, the petithner status would be that of a Govemment lessee as described in section 181(1) ofthe Code. The leczse of a Goverfiment lessee is liable to termmation on one of the grounds stated in sub'section (2) of section 182 of the Code, such an non-payment of rent, misiise of the land, expiry of its term or contravention ofany term or condition ofthe grant A valid lease granted under the Code cannot be set aside on any other ground. Permitting exercise of review powers for settifig aside the lease would be in contravention ofsection 182 and violative ofthe rights of a Govermnent lessee conferred under section 182 of the Code. The power of review conferred under section 51 of the Code^ therefore cannot be exercised with the above oblique motive o/ setting aside a valid grant of leczse of a land made to a Govemment lessee. The leamed counsetfor the petiUoner is also right in relying on the decision cited on behalf of the petitioner that the power ofreview has to be exercised within a rectsonable time and the period of three years is unreaaonably lang period topennit exercise ofsuo mofu power of review under section 51 of the Code. Leamed Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sardarsingh (supra) has plcucedreliance on a dedsion of the Supreme Court in a decision AIR 1969 SC 1297 State of Gujrat v. Radhey. The above decision ofthe Supreme Court as also other decisions cited on the subject lay down that the \ power of review has to be exercised within a reasonable time and the reasonable time depends upon the natu.re of right which is sought to be mtej-fered zvith by the order to be passed in the revieiv. Here, the land was granted for raising a factory. The petitioner obtained possession, paid premium, spent money for obtatn-ing the registered lease-deed. He, thereafter, ma.de initial expenditwe for prepanng the lasid for raismg stnjiature. The pozver of review^ therefore^ should have been exercised well before the petitioner, pursuant to the grant of lease m his favour made substantial expenditure and had incurred liabilities for settmg up an industry as a means of his livelihood. The argument ddvanced on behalf of the Housing Board is not ajcceptable that since the matter ivas brought to the Court and was pending, the entire period spent in the Court should be given allowance for the purpose of determining the reasonable period. The petiUoner had approached this Court agamst the order staying his constniction. There were directions for maintaining status quo by the parties on the land. The Housmg Board had raised objecUon to the allotment and nothing prevented the State from tafcmg necessary steps withm the reasonable time o/ three inonths. The exerdse ofpower of review^ fs therefore, highly belated. An argument basedon the doctrine of promissory estoppel was also advanced on behalf of the petitioner and some ccises were cited, butlneed not go into that aspect o/ the matter, since I find that the action of the respondents is otherwisenot supportable in law.v 8. In the instant case also, grant of lease is by the registered document and as such the status ofthe petitioner will be of Governnient lessee. The lease of the Govemnient lessee can be termiaated on tlie groi.inds contained i-uider sub-section 2 of section 182 of the Code. The valid lease granted under the Code cannot be set aside on any other ground. 9, Tlie ollier que^lioii is of poweit of review uiider SecLioii 51 of the Code. Power of review also cannot be exercised with the oblique motive of setting aside a valid gi'ant of lease of a land made to a Govemment lessee. Thc power of rcvicw has to be exercised within a reasonable period. In the instant case, ttiis has been done after lapse of many years. Tlie Power of review also has to be exercised witJi the prior permission of the coinpetent authority, which has not been done, 10. TyftatTied coiinsel for the petitioner siibmits that all these proceedings were stai'ted but the petitioner was not heard, on the contrary when the notice was served he was detained tn custody and released only on 25.08. 1975 and after release, he came to know about the order dated 25.08.1975 passed by tiie Collector and he applied for certified copy of the order dated 25.8.1975 but the same was not supplied to hiin< It is contended that this is high haiidedness and remindful of thosc black days, It is furthcr contcndcd that this i8 not only violation of principles of natural justice t?ut. depriving the person's Itfe an.d Woerty in contravention of law. It is also contended fhat the orders passed by the Collector are in utter violation. The person was so scared. It is submitted that the wa©granted ia the year 1968^ which could be renewed by the Additional Collector. Thc petitioncr had applied for the renewal and the report ofRevenue Officer was called for. The emergency was imposed and during this period the Collector took suo m.otu action< Paragraph 5 of order dated 16th July 2002 goes to show that the case was fixed for 25-8-1975 and on that date, the petitioner was required to file reply aiid to argi.ie eithcr per^ouaUy or througli coun^el, Counsel 10 contended that it is cvident froia Anncxi.u'e P-6 that thc petitioner was in jail from 7-8-1975 to 25-8-1975 and on 25-8-1975 itself, the petitioner was released from jail, aiid therefore, he could not flle reply as he hpd no opportuuity to do so. There is great force in the contention and the contention could not be dexnolished. The order was passed withoiit affording opportiinity to the petitioner. 11. On perusal of the record^ it appears that the Collector took suo inotu action after a long lapsc of tiine. Evcn thc petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing. The show cause notice was issued to hmi wlien he was detained ui jail. The Apex Court in the case of Mohetmad Kavi v. Fdtinabcd Ibrahim reported in 1998 W M.P.W.N. 37 Nete S6 has hcld that suo niotu powcrs of cnquiry pcriod of liiTiitation uot provided under statute and it shoidd be start.ed within a reasonable time and it is also held that even one year may be luireasonable period for the pm-pose. It has also been held that Section 50 provides that suo niotu powers of revision may be exercised within reasonable time. The Apex Court also in tlie case of State of Qtdctrdt v, Pcctil Rctghav Ncstha csnd others reported in AZR 1969 SC 1297 has held that the Commissioner must exercise his revisional powers within a few nionths of the order of the Collector< 12. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whUe dealing with tlie aforesaid two judgnients of the Apex Comt, in the case of 11 Ravi NarcLyctn vs. State ojf M.P^ ancZ ^thers reported ui 2000 RN 161 has held tliat suo motu revisional powers should be exercised withtn reasonable time and even one year in a given case niay be unreasonable. Even where no tiro.e limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute it does not m.ean that it can be exercised at any tiine; such power has to be exercised withui a reasonable tune, as has been held by the Apex Court in its varlous judgments. 13. In view of the facts and circuiastaiices of the case^ materlal on record and the dlscussion made rn the foregoing paragraplis, the petition is allowed. Tlie order dated 16-7- 2002 passed by respondent No<2 Coniniissioner (Revenue), Bastar Division, Bastai' at Jagdalpur in revision No<4/B- 121/2001-2002 and ordcrs datcd 25-8-1975 and 23-9-1975 passed by respondent No.4 Collcctor^ Bastar ai'e sct asldc, 14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 15. Counsel fee as per scale if certified. , fakhruddin Judge ^7/4/2005 G/H/P