JAILALSINGH TEJASINGH Vs. RAM AVTAR DEVIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, for quashing the order passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision no. 89-111/78.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Devi Ram, Patel of village Jora khurd, Tahsil and District Morena, expired and because of his death, the post of Patel for the said village, became vacant. For appointment of the patel, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Morena registered a case and on 11-5-1977, passed an order of appointment of Patel after taking votes as Patel. In the said voting, Ram Avatar got 284 votes and Jai Lal Singh got 168 votes. As ram Avatar got more votes than Jai Lal Singh, the Sub-Divisional Officer, appointed him as a Patel. Aggrieved by this order, Jai Lal Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, Morena, but the same was dismissed on 18-7-1977. A second appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner. On 22-2-1978, the second appeal was allowed, holding that against ram Avatar there was a conviction under section 392 of the Indian Penal code and he was sentenced for one year's rigorous imprisonment by the judicial Magistrate, First Class. Against that order of conviction, Ram avatar filed an appeal and in that appeal, on 22-3-1975, the Additional sessions Judge gave him benefit under section 6 of the Probation of Offenders act, 1958 (hereinafter deferred to as the Act), holding that he is below 21 years of age and asked him to file bonds and sureties of Rs. 1,500 for good behaviour for a period of one year. The learned Additional Commissioner held that in these circumstances, Ram Avatar cannot be appointed as a Patel as he has incurred disability under the Rules framed under section 222 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). Therefore, accepting the appeal, the learned additional Commissioner appointed Jai Lal Singh as a Patel. Against that, ram Avatar went before the Board of Revenue in revision. The revision was accepted by the Member, Board of Revenue and he set aside the order of the Courts below and passed the order in the following manner:- (Translated in English)

(3.) THERE is no dispute regarding the facts of the case. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ram Avatar was not eligible to contest the election for appointment of Patel, because he was convicted of an offence under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, he has incurred a disqualification as mentioned in Rule 2 (vii)of the Rules framed under section 222 of the Code. But, the learned counsel had to accept that against this conviction, an appeal was filed before the additional Sessions Judge and he has given benefit of the Act to Ram avatar. The reply to this by the learned counsel, appearing for non-petitioner No. 1 Ram Avatar is that as soon as the benefit is given under section 6 of the Act, the disability incurred by the non-petitioner will come to an end. He has relied on section 12 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act runs as under: