$§N EEN$H § H€3N§L§ $E§i 3R. NAYQK, CJA Fetitioraer Bundram, Ska. Thandram by Caste Aghariya Aged abaui’ 72 yeam, resident m” ViHage Lailunga, Tahsi! Gharghocia‘ Distt’. Raigafh. Ragaenégnt§ (SME) , Gharghoda, Dist. Raigamx MP. Dev Praiap Singh, S/o. Gopa§ Singh By Caste Raj Gonci, Janadihi vmage La§éunga Tah. $ha¥ghoda. Diat. Raigarh. Shr§ P. Qiwakaz’, ieamed 8r. Advecaie with 8hr} Adi! Mmhaj; ieamed counsei far the petiticner. AgrawaL Eeamec! GA. fa: Simgrespondems. 1,2 and 3. Pfeseni '. (2} init§a¥§y one sahaskumari beicnging to Raj Goad caste was the ewner of the land bear'mg Khasra Nos. 52§i1 7’, 592, 504/1. The said shahaskumari said the land in Khasra No.529/1 7, to (me Jaidayai. ‘r‘he eaid JaidayeE En tum eeid the said Eene to rhe perit‘roner under e registered F¥ inékG§H cQwRT QF JUDEGA‘FURE CHHATWSGARH : BELASPUR Wfi’s ?eéiii0n N0. Q‘w of 19% Shri VR. Tiwari, Eeameé counse! for respewdent NgA §ML 6EDE§ {Passed an 22.6.2QQ6} Th§s writ petition is direc:ed again$i the ini’i‘iation 0f the pmceedémgs by the Sub Division'a9 Gfficer, Qwii )Ghag'ghoda, District R&%garh, i‘kxe 3rd respendent herein, umer Sec‘iiw 51 of €he Chha‘msgam Lem Revenue Code 1959 (for short ‘the Code’). The facts 0f the case in brief are as feilews: Veraus State 9f Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Vaiiabia Bhawanj Bhopal. The Coiiector Raigarh, Dist Raégafh. MP. The Sub Divisiona£ Qf’ficer saie deed dated 11.04.1961 awarding ta the. petitioner, for a valuable comkieratfon o€ Rs.1000/—. Likewise, iamds camprised in Kha$r& Nos.502 ‘ and 504i? were SoEd by Sahaskumag’i ts Jaidayei‘ The said Jaidaya§ in mm sold the abave gamd$ t9 faiher of the petitienez', Thandaram, by name. After me demEse af Thandaram, the pet§t§0ner cEaims to be m poeses‘sien of a3 the Ehiree §end5 referred to above. {1% Whei’: ’ihe matter sieod 2hus, in the year 1986-81 a Revenue C5139 Ne.153!A—23!35—87 was registemd against ihe peiétioaea' by we then 5ub Div3s§ona1 Gffieen Ghez‘ghozia or: the basis of the ¥ep0r€ ef the Paéwari. £xf+eF the eriquiry, the then Sub DivEsiena§ Q‘é‘ficef, Ghargheda, by hi5 em‘ei dated 31‘G8.19.8? dropped the preceedings holdihg that p;'evisions of Sectbh 1.65 {5) and Seciieh 170—8 ef the Cede ea’e not ehraeted ehd a§so 0n the gé'ouhd that the greund o? feaud was net made (mi. Agaihst the said orde; of the 3gb D§visioha§ Offieer deted 3? .Q3‘19$?, it is statee that no appeal er revlsieh was hreferled. When. the malier steed ihus‘ lhe petllieher received, a hotlce reamed as Annexure-ABI deied 17.0§.199? from the Sub Dlvislonel Ofhcer fixing the date of hearing eh 0?.183? ehe' directing the eeiltiener te appear f0? hearing in preceedlngs initiated under Section 510? the Code for reviewlhg the earliel‘ crder. ‘l’he petliloner having received the hoiiee Annex’iure—A/3 submitted his fegoly Ahnexwe-AM which is net dated. it i5 stated by the eetitiehe! that the Sub Divisieha! Omcer without considering his repiy and without foilowing the precedure, posted the case for gassing the fine! otdei. The petitioner however, hes not disciosect whether the hearing was done anci it it was derie on what date and the date fixed by the Eub Divisional Gffieer for passing the tine! order‘ Be that as it may, at thet stage, the present writ petitien was fiied befere the MP. High Court eh 19.82.1998. The MP. I $"\ High $30M whiie emertaining éhis wrii petition oh 193319318 passed an fntErim order dwests ihai at! further preceedings in Revemue case N6. G/A«23/§8-9?, pwdirg befere the Snrb Dwisichgi GffEcer, Ghat’gheda shaH g'emain in abeyance. ‘f‘ne above Enterim cider §sasseé by (:he MP High Cow? ha$ been in aperafion ti?! da%e. Af£er the formation 9f fhe new State- \ ofCh‘nattisgafh and this Com, the writ getiiien %?as been iranemiiied $0 ihie Cam ave eeerci $m': P. Déwakex leamed $r‘ fwvccate fm‘ the rw~ .,3 gge’titéener and Sirm $avz§ay S. AgE'ewal, eameé Govt Advoc +e f6» rasoo e Es '3 t9 EASI ie *hcrities ar‘d 8hr I m Tiweri iearwd r‘cmsei f“? "me Akh —r"‘ :‘espaedem‘. Smi Siwakar weak} suemaueky cc‘fce’ad met m A 'Ehe facts and ‘ihe eiwumstances af €he case, ihe a respondeni méerly ‘a ’m i med ”ion to iniiiate preceedings Linda! Sectian 5’: of Act c {eview i": earEer a r3 made w he predecessser 2m affise ‘ e wowd high Eaghi: Ci( r»haé the thee Jb DEVEsienai Gfficer after conductmg a detaHed emuhy and a” agpreceténn af merits} had cancluded thai the pmvie§aas of Sectxen 155 (6} arrc‘ HQKB 0f Ehe Cede aE'e rm attre Eee and me pet men oi his View: e d net p¥ay any mead if: pumhaeing ihe Subjeet lands‘ in such faeis aad céz‘cumemncee, éé'ae peéiiicner cenmt b wjeeted te V ’cer’iure if c: 5 rene: cé enqume at he hcedg o; ike Qub Dsvlsmra Gifmer ‘i‘wi Smear waem else cw '1 a a: €he then Sub Divieieme§ Off§cer by We meter (iaéed 34. .Q8.3? dmgged fee {croceedinge initiated by him ueder Sectéen WG-3 cf ibe Ceae weereav aye? leng lepse 0f 1O veers the r‘eedmg Qub Dmsgcrw Qf‘mer inmaLW the proceedmas It wee pcmied out mat iheugh there £5 m iim§iai h “o rev ew the erder under S ‘ itm ”*1 o me Cede, e, a+ power cf my: w is‘i'eqmired $9 be exerc§sed wizhia a a‘eascnabie time ae heid by the $L§§feme Ceurt am? High Courts. I v in support of his submission, ieamed Sr. Counsel would place reliance on a jwdgment of teamed Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 04.02.1999, passed in WP. No.44?5!97 (Ravi Narayan Vs. State cf MP. and cihers). (5) Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State Authorities and iaamsd counsei appeai’ing inf the 4‘“ responcien‘i, per comm, wouid, at the threshold. point out ihat the writ peiition is misconceived and noi maintainabie. 1i was poinieci wt that the Sub Divisienai Officer, the 3rd respsndent herein, must have ebtained sanciion in writing ef the Competeni Authority as required under clause (i) of subuSection (i) of Section 5t at the Cede before registering the revenue case and issuing the impugned riotice to the petitioner am! the petitierier has mt questioned the sanctiori crcier am! therefore, he couid riot. at this stage, make any grievance against the very initiation at the eroceedings. it was alsa contended that normaiiy this Court is not entertaining the writ petition against the statutory show-cause er initiation of orooeedings, unless it is shown that the initiation of the proceedings is by an incompetent authority or ofhoer. it was contended that it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent inherentiy iacks iurisciiotion to initiate the proceedings to review the order under Section 51 of the Code. it was aiso contended that there ere veiid grounds for the 3rd respondent to review the earlier order made by his predecessor in office. (6} Having heard learned counsei for the parties, a short question that arises for decision-making is whether any case is made out by the petitioner to issue writ oi nrohibitionlto injunct the 3rd respondent eirom i proceeding r further in pursuance of the notice of the proceedings right r m Initiated web Vecton 51 of ‘Ehe ”ode it neeeis; i9 be mticed that €he Cade ireif i3 a Soda 0f §ega§ remedies a!se. H: is n0 the: the aggrieved ’ ai‘é‘a93 do net haw any iegai rnmedies to be 9w ”ad by way 9f aweai and/er yeviskm. it §$ true é’hai earQier o2'd9r was made by the ther; SL130 Dh’és‘iamE Qfficer' on 3L08.19&? undar Seaier; WQ-E of the Coda, i1: came? be saw. that th$ OM r made bl t .hem Sub Bivisianai G§f§cer wuid “3‘ be reviewed by ihe succeeding Sub Divisiona! Q‘fke! umler $ect§isn ’51 w tha Loae Sim“ fr: ear}. ¥ cider dawi 3a 95’ 87 Was wad- by the than 5w E‘ivéaimmi Qf‘ficer m terms 3f claiuse (é) cf submSeciéan (1} “f Sectkm 51 of ihe Code} prior samcibh of ’zhe Campeteni Authority ég‘: writEHg wa$ & mu3€ fm ingiiating thé prsseedingg under Section 51 of the Sede. ii xs obwous mat i 3rd rewom‘em mus‘L have mii§ated the pmwedmgs. after obtainmg prim sanction o he Campe’cewt 1% om: tr terms. of $§ause§§ (3f submSectEon (1} 9f $ectécn 51of the Cecie. Of éaurse, the pleadéng é$ immediae and. scanty am % was Hat gEve M? particulars cf ihe c s There £30 a ¥&pse en the pai’t v t; e respogdertwaufhontzec in ne1‘ eiecémg ‘he i'elevanf: materiais aed informatien before the Cewi expesied cf éhem, The respondents have not bothered i0 {He their e‘eadings a§se éhough the wrii peiieers i5 of ihe year 1%8‘ Be that as it may it §e mi he ceee ef the pe‘tiiioee? that the 3m reenorxcierit iniiée‘tee pweeedin§e under Section 51 e§ ihe Cede Wéthoui: ebiaining ps’ior sanctéon m wr§ting of ihe Campetent Auiherity as eqmred undex cieue (l) e we- Seceon (1) 0f Seetioe 51c? th Cede !t !s alwewe ereeumed thai: the Pumie Authomes end Qtatziory Authed. s ‘a‘unctmn in accerdance w§th iaw awees k is otheswise poinfed out by satisfecfcew mateyieisjhaefere, there is re aserrr' r true Veer“ . i, mi: ihae the 3rd respendem has imtia'ted fne m e. prgceedhgs withom obtaining pyior sanction in writing of ihe Campetent Authority under the ciausea') af sub-$ection (i) of $action 51o? ihe Code. (7) i find considerabie’ form in the submission of ieameci Gavf. Acivocaie. The 0rder cf the Campetenz Authority according sanctian in writing is not a part of the procaedings initiated by the Sub Divisionai Gffirser to review the earlier order passed by his predecessor in office. The $ancticn aide? is different fmm initiation 0f the proceedings or cuimination of ihe pmceedings initiateci by the 3rd respondeni by way 9f a iinai orcier. The crder that might have been made by the Competent Authority accerciing sanction is a statutory order and uniess that order is assailed in an aepropriateiegai preceedings and quaehed, further steps taken by the Sub Divisional Officer couici not be fauited. The objective cf the preseripiion of securing prior sanction in writing of the Competent Authority, it appears to my mind, is that an efficer of the gracie of Sub Divisienai Officer, for any extreneousor ceiiaterei ccneideratien shouid not review the order made i5 himseii or his Predecessor and exemise that power without ptior sanction of a prescribed higher authority in the administrative echeion of the Revenue Department. There is no need ior diiuting this aspect further. The fact remains that the sanction accorded by the Competent Authority permitting the 3rd respondent to initiate the proceedings under Seotion 5i of the Code is not asseiied and it remains unehaiienged. (8) Secondiy, it needs to he noticed that is we” settled that the Court, normeiiy, shouid not interfere with the initiation of a statutory proceeding by issuing a show~cause notice uniess it is shown that the officer or the authority who has issued notice utteriy iacks iegai authority to initiate such proceedings. it is not contended or cannot be contented that ihe 3 rd fespondent inherentw lacks jurisdiction to initiate proceedings i under Section 51 of the Code to review the order. But, it is the case of the petitioner that since the then Sub Divisionai Officer eariier had heid that the provisions of 165 (6) and 170-8 of the Code are not attracted and fraud on the part of the purchaser is not proved, there was no justification for the succeeding Sub Divisienai Officer to initiate the proceedings. Whether thete are sufficient materials to initiate the proceedings under Sectien 51 of the Cede or whether there was justification to do so, are the matters to he thrashed cat after appreciating the evidence on record that may be adduced by both the sides. At this stage itseif, it needs to be noticed that it is not that the petitioner has rushed to this Court immediateiy after he received impugned notice. in pursuance of the notice, he submitted his reroiy putting-forth his defences against the impugned proceedings and it appears that he also participated in the hearing heid on 87.10.1997 though the pleading in that regard is very vague. The issue that felts for decision on merit before the Sub Divisionai Officer falls within the domain of protecting the rights of aboriginal tribals and agriculturists. There should be fair consideration of the issue on merit. lt wiii be totaiiy inappropriate for this Court to interdict the very initiation proceedings on the specious ground that on an earlier occasion the then sub Divisional Officer had dropped the proceedings. The wisdom of the law-maker in enacting Section 51 of the Code enabling the Sub Divisional Officer to review the earlier orders made under the same provisions could not be questioned either directly or indirectly. Q) it is true, as contended by Shri P. Diwakar, learned Sr. Counsei appearing for the petitioner that though Section 51 of the Code \, 3? ~g... tines n9€ pyescrEbe any Eimitatiorwi fer exercising the review pewer. That power has t0 be ex rciseé wi€hin a {easenahte time as held by the Apex- Ceurt and the High Cams in Iarge wmber of prenwncemergts. This, point coub‘ a§$a be raged heme the $ub Divisiog’xai G€fice¥ far censidemtion‘ 10} The Judgment of a Eeamed Sing§e Judge 0? MP High Cami, acted abave amd citg'i by 3hr? P. Diwakar, can be distingu§shed on a‘acta. l have g3e2'used the said judgment Tmt was a case Where the pumhaser had purchased the Shibject 3am therein after obtainirag necessaiy sanefien from tam Sweater of the Sietyici: ceneemed. in téae eafiier enquiry he§d by ihe $1)? D§v§s§met afficer, it was reecr'deé on the basis 0f the eviderrce that ‘the aiienaéion ef the land was s acccrdance with 1am}. As painted ow: were, éhe ieaéin s n this case are seam arid unsatisfacto . {View I retevant ma’uerfaEs whish are germeae to Ehe deciséom-makmg aye mt forthcoming from the pieadings, fer eg, What is ihe extent of Eand comprised Er‘ Khaera Nos. 52§I€7, 502 and 504/1 is n02: stated, Fwshermore, whet was Ehe censideratim paid wiih regafcE t0 the lane comsrised in Khesra Nos. 502 arid 504;”. was aiso not stated. The extehi of iand and the cansidemtion paid, it is trite, undeniabiy are reievant cansiciera‘iiens for deciding an the vaiidity of sale iransaciion. Thai is why, as noted above: theught there shouid be a fair censideratien oi the case ih the inieresi 0i bath the parties. ‘i'his Couri is incapahie 9i forming any opihion on such scenty and unseiisfaciory materiais placed heiore ihe Courts in ihai View oithe matter, after necessaiy i'efiection, i think that it is hot a fit case to staii the pi‘cceedihgs initiated by the Sub Divisicnai affieer by a writ 0i prohibition without appreciating the merits of the matter. in that View of the matter, i eismiss the writ petitior: with no order as ta costs. The S'd respendentuSUh Sivisiehai Gificer is directed ta consider the reei‘y n aEready fiied by the petitioner, if any, give the parties fair opportunity to submit their respective case and appreciate the evidence produced by them and pass appropriate order, in accordance with iaw, at an early date. it is, hcwever, directed that the etatus-quo that obtains as or: teday with regard to possessicn 3f the subject property shalt be maintained tiii the 3’” respondent dispoes of the proceedings. After receipt of a copy of this order, before taking any further step and conducting any hearing, the 3rd respondent eha issue notice of hearing to the parties. (j/\ // _»//V VG/yx v ’ . y/K/yx/ " sdl— Chi ‘e€ wwwe s ii /