JAGDEO PRASAD AND ANR Vs. BHOLA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of two Petitioners arising out of mutation proceedings, and they have come up to this Court Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts of the case are that there was one Smt. Kailasha, widow of Mula, and mutation was ordered by the Panchayati Adalat in favour of the Petitioners. As there was no dispute either to their tide or to their possession, none of the parties to the mutation proceedings raised any objection in the office of the Sub-divisional Officer for the order of the Panchayti Adalat to be revised Opposite party No. 1 Bhola who was a subtenant of Smt. Kailasha, widow of Mula, for about five bighas of land and was no party to the mutation proceedings, filed an application to the Sub-divisional Officer purporting to be Under Section 85, Panchayat Raj Act. That application was far beyond sixty days as prescribed Under Section 85. Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act provides that the Sub-divisional Officer may, on the application of any party or on his own motion, at any time iu a pending case, suit or proceeding, as the case may be and within sixty days, from the date of a decree or order, call for the record of the case, suit or proceeding, as the case may be, from the Panchayati Adalat and may for reasons to be recorded in writing (a) cancel the jurisdiction of the Panchayati Adalat with regard to any suit, case or proceeding, or (b) quash any decree or order passed by the Panchayati Adalat at any stage. Without the application being within sixty days, it was not open to the S.D.M., to exercise his jurisdiction Under Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act. That was a condition precedent even if he wanted to do suo motu. The present proceedings were not started by any party to the mutation proceedings but were started by a stranger who had no right to move the sub-divisional Officer. The Sub-divisional Officer purports to act suo motu. If the order passed and was being revised within sixty days then it could be said that the Sub-divisional Officer could revise it suo motu but, after sixty days as Section 85 stood at that time, the Sub-divisional Officer could hot interfere with the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite-parties that the order is a just order and under the circumstances this Court should not interfere with that order because the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and if there is a just order, this Court should not quash the order of the Sub-divisional Officer. It is true but it is very difficult to say whether that order is just or not. The father whose name has been allowed to be brought on the record by the Sub-divisional Officer was a party to the mutation proceedings. He never objected to the names of his sons being brought on the record and therefore it cannot be said that the order is a just order. The opposite-party No. 1 is only a sub-tenant and he can sue both the father and the sons if there is any reason for doubt in his mind but if the sons have been recorded, he can treat the sons hereafter as the tenants-in-chief. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order was a just order and therefore this Court should not interfere.