Second Appeal No. 154 of 2001. Case: Ranveer Singh (deceased by L.Rs.) and Anr Vs State. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Second Appeal No. 154 of 2001 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sanjay Kumar Mishra, A. K. Kaushik and Raghvendra Bhargava, Advs. and For Respondents: M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Addl. Advocate General and Vivek Khedkar, Govt. Advocate, for the State, K.B. Chaturvedi, H. D. Gupta, S. B. Mishra, Sr. Counsels and K. S. Bajpai, R. D. Sharma and Sameer Kumar Jain, Adv. |
| Judges | A. K. Shrivastava, J. and Abhay M. Naik, J. and S. S. Dwivedi , J. |
| Issue | Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (1959) - Section 50 |
| Citation | AIR 2011 MP 27 |
| Judgement Date | August 30, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Judgment:
A. K. Shrivastava, J.
-
On bare perusal of the order of reference dated 20/4/2010, we find that the learned Single Judge felt it necessary to refer the following question either to be decided by the Division Bench or Full Bench and, hence, referred the matter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice. Eventually, Hon'ble the Chief Justice referred the following question to answer by constituting this Full Bench. It would be germane to quote the question which has been referred to us:
Whether in the case wherein an individual is not put to suffer any irreparable loss, exercise of suo motu powers after any length of period is justifiable in law, more so, for protection of Govt. land or public interest.?
-
Indeed, the question which has been referred to this Full Bench is in two parts; the first part pertains to an individual who is not put to irreparable loss and the second part is that what should be the justifiable period within which suo motu powers should be exercised by the revisional authority.
-
We have heard Sarvshri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, A.K. Kaushik and Raghvendra Bhargava, learned counsel for appellants and Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Since the question referred to this Full Bench is of general importance and further because several cases would be effected and the revisional authority who would exercise suo motu powers shall also be guided, hence, we have also heard Sarvshri K.B. Chaturvedi, H.D. Gupta and S.B. Mishra, learned senior counsel. Sarvshri S.K. Bajpai, R.D. Sharma and Sameer Kumar Jain, learned counsel have also addressed us.
-
Learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned amicus curiae have highlighted various provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Acquisition Act), M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for brevity the Ceiling Act) and other similar provisions enacted in other statutes and by focusing Section 50 of the Code, which speaks about the exercise of revisional power by the Board or Commissioner or/Settlement Commissioner or Collector or the Settlement Officer, have contended that the suo motu powers cannot be exercised at any point of time. In this context heavy reliance has been made on some decisions of Supreme Court they are State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and others, AIR 1969 SC 1297, ESI Corpn v. C.C. Santhakumar, (2007) 1 SCC 584: (2006 AIR SCW 6427) and Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and others v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others, (2009) 9 SCC 352: (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2471).
-
Shri H.D. Gupta, learned senior counsel, by inviting our attention to Section 57 of the Code particularly sub-sections (2) and (3) has submitted that if dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under sub-section (1), such dispute shall be decided by the Sub Divisional Officer and has further submitted that sub-section (3) provides remedy to any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section (2) to institute a Civil Suit to contest the validity of that order within a period of one year from the date of such order and, hence, submitted that in order to surpass any order of Sub Divisional Officer and to get it somersaulted after the expiry of prescribed period of limitation of one year, revisional jurisdiction should not be exercised so that sub-section (3) of Section 57 may not become otiose. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Ram Chand and others v. Union of India and others, (1994) 1 SCC 44: (1993 AIR SCW 3479) and also on the Single Bench decisions of this Court State of M.P. and another v. Board of Revenue and others, 2006 RN 167 and Kashiram v. Hariram and others, 2008 RN 99.
-
Shri K.B. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel has also submitted that suo motu powers cannot be exercised after indefinite period. Learned senior counsel has placed heavy reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court Ushadevi and others v. State of M.P. and others, 1990 MPLJ 353 and has also placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court Rammulal and others v. State of M.P., 1990 RN 407 wherein it has been held that the suo motu powers should be exercised within few months. Learned senior counsel by inviting our attention to Section 50 of the Code, which pertains to revisional power, has contended that since the Legislature has fixed 90 days to file revision application before the Revenue Board and 60 days when it is to be exercised by the Commissioner or/Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer and, therefore, looking to the scheme of this Section powers should not be exercised after more than 90 days from the date when it came into the knowledge of the revisional authority that illegality has been committed by any revenue officer subordinate to it.
-
Shri S.B. Mishra, learned senior counsel, has also addressed us on the same proposition. Shri R.D. Sharma and Shri S.K. Bajpai, learned counsel, have also submitted that it should not be exercised after lapse of several years and should be exercised within few months. Learned counsel have placed reliance on Single Bench decision of this Court Hamir Singh v. State of M.P. and others, 1996 RN 80, Pratap Singh and another v. State of M.P., 1997 RN 219, Sitaram v. State of M.P. and others, 1999 RN 82, Kashiram v. Hariram and others, 2008 RN 99 and the decision of Supreme Court M.P. Housing Board v. Shiv Shankar Mandil and others, 2009 RN 1: (AIR 2009 SC 863). Shri Sameer Kumar Jain, learned counsel, has also argued on the same line and has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Mohamad Kavi v. Fatmabai Ibrahim, 1998 (I) MPWN 26.
-
On the other hand, Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State, submitted that no upper limit should be fixed for exercising the suo motu powers of revision and it should be left for the authority to exercise the same looking to the facts and circumstances of each case. Learned State counsel have placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy and others, (2003) 7 SCC 667: (AIR 2003 SC 3592), State of Punjab and others v. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 363: (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 473), Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah and Anr., AIR 2010 SC 744, State of A.P. and another v. T. Yadagiri Reddy and others, JT 2009 (1) SC 104. They have also placed reliance on Division Bench decisions of this Court Murarilal and others v. State of M.P. and others, 1994 MPLJ 378, Sarvan Kumar and another v. State of M.P. and another, 2007 (1) MPLJ 60, Mulayam Singh and another v. Budhuwa and others, 2002 (I) MPJR 351: (2002 AIHC 2814).
-
What should be the meaning of irreparable loss, Shri H.D. Gupta, learned senior counsel, submits that this term is having very wide connotation and cannot be restricted in any manner. While considering what should be the irreparable loss, several factors are required to be seen including labour put by the agriculturist for a considerable long period, the land which has been developed by him, construction of boundary wall or trenching the boundaries of the field, digging of well etc. Learned Additional Advocate General, submits that irreparable loss would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
-
Before dealing with the rival contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned amicus curiae we think it apposite to go through the power of revision which is to be exercised by the revisional authority under Section 50 of the Code. This section highlights the revisional power conferred to the Board or Commissioner or/the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or Settlement Officer and as per this Section, these authorities may at any time on its own motion or on an application made by any party for the purpose of satisfying itself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceedings of any revenue officer subordinate to it may call and examine the record of any case pending or disposed of by such officer and may pass necessary orders as it thinks fit. For better understanding it would be condign to quote Section 50 of the Code, which reads thus:-
50. Revision.-(1) The Board or the Commissioner/or the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer 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 proceedings 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 S. 170-B, nor shall any such order be revised by the Board on its own motion;
(ii) no such application shall be entertained unless presented within sixty days to the Commissioner or/the Settlement Commissioner or the Collector or the Settlement Officer, as the case may be, or within ninety days to the Board of Revenue from the date of the order and in computing the period aforesaid, time requisite for obtaining a copy of the said order shall be excluded;
(iii) no order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard.
(2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial