Case: State Of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Ors Vs. Seth Balkishan Nathani &amp; Ors

2. The facts in Appeal No. 370 of 1960 may be stated first. Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani, was the proprietor and lambardar of Mouza Sonpairi in Tehsil and District Raipur. On January 14, 1947, he executed perpetual pastas in favour of his wife, Yashodabai, since deceased, and respondents 4, 5 and 6 in respect of khudkasht and grass lands of Mouza Sonpairi. In Tabdili Jamabandi of the year 1941347 the said lands were recorded as the Occupancy Tenancy Holdings of the said respondent 4 to 6 and respondent 2, Govindlal Nathani, the legal representative of Yashodabai. The same entry was found in the Jamabandis of the subsequent years. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, l950 (1 of 1951), hereinafter called the Act, came into force on January 22, 1951. Thereafter in due course the estate of the said proprietor was duly notified under S. 3 of the Act. On March 25, 1952, the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, acting under S. 40 of the Act, recognised the said Balkishan Nathani as the pattadar and settled the assessment payable by him in respect of Khasra Nos. 289/2 and 366/7 of Mouza Sonpairi. No appeal was preferred against that order. Thereafter, appellant 2, the Nistar Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Raipur, started proceedings against the respondents for the correction of old annual papers in Mouza Sonpairi with a view to reopen the earlier order made under S. 40 of the Act, as the earlier order was passed on the basis of the entries found in Tabdili Jamabandi of the year 1946-47 and subsequent years. Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani, raised an objection that appellant 2 had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings. Appellant 2 overruled the objection and made the followingthe next hearing, 5 witnesses may be produced for proving cultivation. The names of the purchasers, to whom the lands have been sold, be obtained from the Patwari and a notice he served on them that they should file their statements as well as should bring the sale-deeds along with them. Hearing fixed for date 4-8-1954. The non-applicants may file other evidence which they wish towill be seen from the said order that the second appellant purported to make an inquiry in regard to the factum of cultivation as well as the validity of the sale-deeds whereunder respondent I created interests in the other respondents. Respondent 1 preferred an appeal from that order to the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, but the same was dismissed on the ground that it was premature. Thereupon, the respondents filed the writ petition No. 22 of 1955 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.3. Civil Appeal No. 371 of 1960 relates to Patti No. 1 of Mouza Kachna in Tehsil and District Raipur. Respondent 1 was the Proprietor and Lambardar of the said Mouza. On February 19, 1948, the said Seth Balkishan Nathani executed perpetual pastas in respect of the said lands in favour of the same respondents as in the other appeal. In the annual papers the said lands were recorded as the Occupancy Tenancy Holdings of respondents 2 to 6. On December 8, 1954, appellant 2 made an inspection of the said lands and made the following order on December 9,* * * *2. There were found to be obvious mistakes in Government documents Khasra, Jamabandi and Tabdilat, Mistakes discharged (discovered) by me in Patwari papers have been corrected.3. Ex-proprietors (I) Balkishan Nathani and others and (2) Narayanrao made absolutely bogus transfers in favour of their family members, namely(i) (a) Kamlabai, (b) Pana Bai, (c) Yashodabai, (d) Chhote Bai of Nathani family.(ii) Kamla Bai Chitnavis, wife of Narayanrao, ax-proprietor.Patwari entered names without cultivation and agricultural possession against Land Record Manual. Volume 1.4. Mistakes found in patwari records have been corrected by me after spot inspection.These papers be nowwill be seen from the said order that the second appellant found that the transfers made by respondent l in favour of the other respondents were bogus and that he also corrected the entries in the annual papers to the effect that the landlord was not cultivating the lands as recorded in the earlier papers. The respondents filed writ petition No 274 of 1905 in the High Court to quash the said order. A Full Bench of the High Court held that neither S. 15 (3) of the Act nor S. 47 (1) of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 (C. P. Act No. [I of 1917), hereinafter called the Land Revenue Act, conferred a power on the Nistar Officer to review orders already made in respect of the factum of cultivation or the occupancy rights recognized under the relevant provisions of the said Acts. In the result, it allowed the two writ petitions quashing the proceedings started by the Nistar Officer in the case of Mouza Sonpairi and the order, dated December 9, 1954, passed by him in the case of Mouza Kachna and prohibiting him from taking further proceedings which may affect the occupancy tenancy rights of the petitioners in the lands in dispute. Hence the two appeals.

Reasoning: 6. As we are inclined to agree with the view expressed by the High Court on the two questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, we do not propose to consider the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents.7. The two questions raised in this case are in a way inter-related and the answer to them depends upon the construction of the relevant sections of the Act and the Land Revenueis no provision in the Act which authorizes the Deputy Commissioner to review an order made by him under the said subsection and, therefore, an order made by him, subject to appeal, becomes final. It is therefore, manifest that the order made by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of lands in question determining the rent on the basis that the proprietor was an occupancy tenant had become final. If so, the Nistar Officer, i.e., the second appellant, had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reopening the order made in respect of Mouza Sonpairi or in making the order reviewing the earlier order made by him in respect of Mouza Kachna, for the said orders had become final and there is no provision under the Act for reviewing them. But the learned counsel for the appellants contends that S. 15 (3) of the Act confers such a power. Under S. 15 (3) of the Act, the authority concerned can review an order made by him under S. IS of the Act. Section 13 of the Act deals with an order made by the Compensation Officer deciding the amount of compensation due to the claimant and recording in a statement in the prescribed form the details of the land which shall vest in the State. Neither S. 13 nor S. 15(3) has any relevance in the context of an order made by the Deputy Commissioner under S. 40 of the Act.10. This conclusion would be sufficient to dispose of the appeals. But, as an argument was made on the construction of Section 47 (1) of the Land Revenue Act and as the same was considered by the High Court, we shall also deal withis not disputed that in the annual papers prepared earlier it was shown that the proprietor was cultivating the lands in question afterargument, if we may say so, is contrary to the scope and tenor of the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the rules madeis, therefore, clear that a Record of Rights consists of Khewat, Khasra, Jamabandi, etc., and till it is revised again it will hold the field. The entries therein can be modified only for the grounds mentioned in S. 46 of the Land Revenue Act. The provisions of S. 47 if contrasted with those of S. 46, make it clear that the said section intends to bring the said documents up-to-date by recording the subsequent changes based on supervening events. The scope of the annual papers is only to record the existing facts on the basis of spot inspection at the beginning of a fasli and to record changes occurring during the course of the year after the year is closed. It is not the province of the annual papers to investigate and decide on the correctness or otherwise of the entries made in the earlier annual papers as on the date they werecannot accept this interpretation of theentirely agree with this view. It follows that the Nistar Officer, has no jurisdiction to correct the said entries with a view to reopen the matter already closed under S. 40 of the Act. We, therefore agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.