BANWARILAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 19-3-1997, Annexure P-11, passed by State of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Collector, Morcna has passed an order for exchange of Government land with the agricultural land of Ban-warilal vide order dated 20-3-1985. Banwarilal s/o Murarilal, through natural guardian Murarilal, has moved an application that he wants to exchange his agricultural land bearing survey No. 84 with the Government land bearing survey Nos. 904 and 942. The matter was sent for enquiry and report of Tehsildar, Jora. Tehsildar, Jora after proclamation enquired into the matter and wrote a letter to Gram Panchayat for its opinion about the exchange. The Sarpanch and four panchas of the village had no objection to exchange of land. Tehsildar, Jora recorded statement of Patwari of the village and Murarilal.

(3.) AFTER recording the statement, a memorandum was forwarded to Sub-Divisional Officer for his opinion. The Sub-Divisional Officer has submitted the opinion and forwarded the papers to the Court of Collector. The Collector, after examining the case, allowed the application for exchange and further ordered that recording of land as "extra-Municipal Nazul Ooser" be deleted under Section 237 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and, declared the land fit for agriculture (Kabil Kasht ). It was further ordered that the land of applicant is reserved for pasture under Section 237 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. An appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Gwalior under the provisions of Revenue Book Circular. The Commissioner, after examining the matter, found that the Collector has passed orders for exchange of Government land under the provisions of Para 20 (3), Part-IV, Chapter 3 of Revenue Book Circular. The appeal was treated under Para 30 of Chapter 3. On examining the case the Commissioner found that since the dispute is still subjudice before the Collector, therefore, he refused to entertain the order passed by the Collector. The respondents then challenged the order before Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 26-3-1988 held that the second appeal is not maintainable before the Board and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the respondents preferred a revision before the State Government. The State Government after examining the matter found that the allotment is contrary to provisions of Para 20 of Revenue Book Circular, Part IV, Chapter 3 and, cancelled the exchange. After the order was passed by the State Government, the petitioners filed writ petition before this Court which was numbered as Misc. Petition No. 1366/91. This Court directed that as regards maintainability of revision under the rules should be decided by the State and the parties were directed to appear before the State Government. Parties appeared before the State Government and State Government has again passed an order that the exchange of land is contrary to provisions of Para 20, Part IV, Chapter 3 of Revenue Book Circular. The petitioners then moved an application for review stating therein that in fact the case was to be decided on an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act but the State Government has decided the case on merits. The revisionist has decided to withdraw the revision on 11 -2-97 and the application was argued on the prayer for withdrawal of revision, therefore, the order of State Government treating the revision as a suo-motu revision is improper and State Government has no jurisdiction to exercise suo-motu revisional power. This application for review is rejected without assigning any reason.