THAKUR BIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the High court of Madhya Pradesh on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside certain orders of the Collector of Jabalpur prohibiting the appellant (the petitioner before the High court) from cutting and removing any forest produce from over Acres 1,000-00 of land in village Sunchra, directing that the aforesaid lands had been wrongly shown in the year 1947-48 as held by the petitioner as a plot-porprietor which were to be treated as having vested in the State and the land records to be corrected accordingly, forfeiting the forest produce from the aforesaid lands which had been seized and imposing on the petitioner a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 for breach of the Rules framed under Section 218-A of the central Provinces land Revenue Act, 1917. The other orders challenged were those of the additional Commissioner of Jabalpur, dated 14/01/1963 dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the earlier order of the Collector and an order, dated 27/07/1964 by the Board of Revenue dismissing the petitioner's further appeal.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows. On suspicion that the petitioner was guilty of illegal extraction of timber from government forest lands, the collector of Jabalpur made an order on 19/02/1953 prohibiting further cutting of timber from the said lands. The Sub-Divisional Officer, katni enquired into the matter and submitted a report on 20/12/1958. After issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and giving him a hearing, the Collector passed an order on 3/06/1960 by which he held in substance that (a) the petitioner with the collusion and connivance of the patwari had been instrumental in having Acres 1054-02 out of an area of Acres 1401-91 of land which at the time of settlement were recorded as big tree forest, scrub jungle, etc. recorded as occupied lands and as being held by the appellant as plot-proprietor, and (b) that the annual papers for the year 1947-48 could be corrected under Section 108 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code of 1954 and the record prepared under Section 13 (1) of the Act could be reviewed and corrected under Section 15 (3) of that Act. He also held that in extracting forest produce the petitioner had committed a breach of Rules 3, 4 (a) and 4 (b) of the Rules framed under Section 202 of the Act of 1917. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Additional Commissioner was dismissed. The appellate officer held inter alia :

(3.) The High court took the view that the revenue courts had made a wrong approach to the main question and as there were errors of law apparent on the face of the record the orders were liable to be quashed even though some of the grounds urged in support of the petition were not good. The High court was not of the view that the annual papers for the year 1948-49 should be regarded as final nor according to it was the record prepared under Section 13 (1) of the Act unchallengeable. Referring to Section 15 of the Act which provided for appeals, revisions and review the High court held that the record made by the Compensation Officer under Section 13 of the Act was to be treated as final under Section 15 (4) subject to the provisions of the first three Ss. of Section 15 but the Collector was empowered to examine the record and review the orders passed by himself or his predecessors-in-office under the provisions of the said section. The High court also remarked that "the plea relating to want of jurisdiction involves the question whether the Compensation Officer could be regarded as a predecessor-in-office of the Collector for purposes of provisions of the Act" and this question had not been considered by the Collector or by the two appellate authorities. It was further observed by the High court that the question whether the entries in the annual papers for the year 1948-49 were fraudulent or otherwise was not material and the petitioner could not claim the lands as home-farm because they were not actually recorded as sir or khudkasht and it was not the petitioner's claim that he had brought the lands under cultivation after the agricultural year 1948-49, but before the date of vesting. According to the High court even if the Collector were competent to review and correct the record under Section 15 (3) of the Act he could not do so without considering its effect on the compensation, determined under Section 13 (1) of the Act. In the opinion of the High court the appellate authorities having overlooked this aspect of the matter the orders passed by the Collector or those in appeal could not be allowed to stand.