MAMRAJ GOKULCHAND Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE, M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of Choudhuri J. rejecting summarily an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the Appellants for quashing an order of the Board of Revenue.

(2.) THE material facts are that in 1953 the Board of Revenue set aside an order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Raigarh, made on 30 August 1952 in proceedings under Section 54(1) of the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950. The matter then came up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and on 3 November 1953 the order of the Board of Revenue was quashed, and the case was remanded for fresh disposal. After remand, the hearing of the case was resumed before the Nistar Officer, Raigarb. During the pendency of the proceedings, the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1954, came into force on 1 October 1955. Section 238 of the Code repealed the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act with the exception of Sections 38 to 70 excluding Sections 48, 52 and 64. Section 54 of the Act was thus repealed. The Appellants then raised an objection that as Section 54 of the Act had been repealed no further proceedings under that section could be taken by the Nistar Officer. This objection was overruled by the Nistar Officer, and his decision was upheld ultimately in appeal also by the Board of Revenue. The Board took the view that the repealed Section 54 did not affect the right which had accrued to the opponents under Section 54 on the date of the repeal. The Appellants then moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge took the view that proceedings under Section 54 had been started prior to the repeal of the section and that therefore they could be continued under Clauses (c) and (e) of Section 5 of the C. P. and Berar General Clauses Act read with Section 239 of the Code.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellants did not dispute that Section 54(1) of the Act dealt with a vested right. He, however, argued that the vested right under section could accrue to a party only on the date of the making of an order by the Deputy Commissioner reserving to a proprietor the rights of a raiyat in land and not before, and that it could not therefore be said in the present case that any such vested right accrued to the opponents merely on the making of the application under Section 54. It was further said that Section 241 of the Code while providing for the continuance of applications under Sections 41, 56 and 69 of the Act did not say anything about the continuance of pending proceedings under Section 54 and this was a pointer to the fact that proceedings under Section 54 would terminate on the repeal of that section. Learned Counsel further submitted that Section 5 of the C. P. and Berar General Clauses Act, 1914, could not be applied in the present case as the repeal was followed by a fresh legislation.