UMRAO SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are as under :

(2.) On 31st October, 1956 the Government of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat issued circular No.3609, dated 31st October 1956 providing for allotment of beed land by way of compensation to the former Zamindars and which was already in their cultivating possession, but had come to be vested in the State Government under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951. The appellants herein, being such zamindars and taking advantage of the aforesaid circular were allotted 4 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land in Survey No. 48/1 and 14 Biswas of land in Survey No. 441 making a total area of 5 Bighas and 9 Biswas vide order dated 13th August, 1960. As per the case of the appellants the Collector of the District in exercise of his suo motu powers set aside the allotment of the suit land except for one Biswas in Survey No. 441 vide order dated 20th August, 1974. This order was challenged by the appellants before the Commissioner of the Division and having failed, filed a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II impugning the order of the Collector and the Commissioner. The Civil Court after framing issues relating to the case decreed the suit vide judgment dated 7th January, 1981. This judgment and decree was challenged in first appeal by the State Government before the Additional District Judge, Shajapur which too was, dismissed on 7th May, 1993. A second appeal was taken by the State of M.P. before the High Court on the following substantial question of law :

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants has raised two arguments before us in the course of the hearing; first, that the suo motu power of revision which the Collector had exercised had not been vested in him by any Statute and if such a power did exist it had been exercised after an unduly long period of time and as such the interference made by him was unjustified, and secondly that the question of law that had been framed had not been answered and for this additional reason the appeal must succeed. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, pointed out that the Tehsildar had no authority to allot the land under the executive instructions and that the Collector had not exercised his suo motu powers but had declined to grant approval to the order of the Tehsildar making the allotment and that the matter had been kept pending for this purpose. It has also been pleaded that the executive instructions dated 31st October, 1956 had been withdrawn under the Government letter dated 23rd June 1975, and as the matter was pending before the Commissioner at that stage, the allotment had been rightly cancelled.