MANGAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.10.2004 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 07/A-19(5) 03-04 and the order dated 28.07.2003 of the Collector, Bastar, in Revision Case No. 03/A-19(5)/2002-03 whereby the lease of the land granted to the petitioner in Revenue Case No. 54/A-10(5)/86-87, was cancelled.

(2.) The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the lease of suit land bearing Khasra No. 119/1 area 0.70 decimal and Khasra No 120/1 area 2.85 acres, total area 3.55 acres of land situated at village Bharni was granted to the petitioner after registration of revenue case No. 54/V-19(5)/86-97 by the Naib Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, on 30.12.1986 under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhumi Par Bhumi Swami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jani (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1984 (for short 'the Act,1984'). The respondent No. 3 to 6 encroached upon the said land which lead to filing of an application under section 350 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') for demarcation of the land before the Naib Tahsildar, Jagdalpur. After demarcation, the respondent No. 3 to 6 were directed to vacate the possession and deliver the same to the petitioner. The respondents No. 3 to 6, against the order dated 05.03.2003 made a complaint before the Collector, Bastar. The Collector, by order dated 09.06.2003 (Annexure P/3) observed that the respondent No. 3 to 6 are free to file appeal against the order of the Naib Tahsildar and further directed for delivery of the possession to the petitioner and held that no action can be taken on the basis of complaint made by the respondent No. 3 to 6. The Collector, Jagdalpur, taking a suo moto revisional jurisdiction registered a revenue case No. 3/V-19(5)/2002-03 and issued notice to the petitioner as well as to the respondents. The petitioner filed his objection stating inter alia that the lease of the suit land on Bhumi Swami rights was granted to the petitioner on 30.12.1986, therefore, on suo moto motion, revisional power cannot be exercised after such a long time and further that no copy of the application filed by the respondents was supplied to him.

(3.) According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Collector, Bastar, without affording any opportunity of hearing and without providing any opportunity to cross examination, after 17 years, has set aside the lease granted in favour of the petitioner, by order dated 28.07.2003. Shri Sharma further submits that the notice issued by the Collector was with regard to the complaint, and not for cancellation of the lease granted under the Act, 1984. Against the order passed by the Collector, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which has also been dismissed by order dated 29.10.204 holding that the Collector has passed the order under the provisions of the Revenue Book Circular, and therefore, under section 50 of the C.P.C is not maintainable and an appeal shall lie before the State Government.