SHIV NARAIN Vs. TAHSILDAR, GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against an order of the Revenue Board, re fusing to set aside an order of Tehsildar which was challenged on the ground of not being only against law, but also on the ground of being against natural justice.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this application are that the petitioner was a Zamindar, that some tenants executed a surrender -deed in his favour and after an inquiry, the land in question was entered as the Khudkasht of the Zamindar by an order of the Tehsildar. After the abolition of the Zamindari, the Zamindar (petitioner) was also duly entered as a Pucca tenant of the land in Revenue papers, and, he also paid rent which was accepted by the Tehsildar. Non -petitioner No. 2, Janki by an application dated 16 -6 -52 under section 51 of the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act, disputed these entries, but since he did not pursue his application it was dismissed for default on 8 -11, 52, five months after Janki had instituted these proceedings, and, the order of the Tehsildar acquired a finality. On 12, 12, 53, the Girdawar Qanoongo of the Circle, submitted a report to the Tehsildar, to the effect that entries of Samvat 2007 should be kept in tact in Samvat 2010. The Tehsildar purporting to act under section 50 of the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act, accepted the suggestion and in utter disregard of the former orders passed by him, and, without giving notice to the petitioner, in whose name the entries stood, passed an order, the effect of which was the cancellation of the name of the petitioner in the Revenue papas and the substitution of the name of Janki con petitioner No. 2. It is significant that the Girdawar Qanoongo submitted his report on 22 -1 -53 and the Tehsildar forthwith passed an order on the same day, saying ditto to what the Qanoongo suggested without any conviction of his own. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Collector and the matter eventually reached the Revenue Board in revision. The Revenue Board refused to interfere and the present petition is filed against that order of the Revenue Board.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to Section 50 of the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') no Revenue Officer is competent to correct a wrong or incorrect entry without recording a finding about the entry that is sought to be corrected It is argued that in the first place the word find' occurring in the Section 51 of the Act connotes that an enquiry must be made and a finding arrived at as a result of the enquiry. Secondly, it is urged that in consonance with the well recognised principles of natural justice if any adverse order is to be made against any person, then such a person should be first heard before an order is made