SONEJU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner, Sagar Division in the matter of interfering with an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tikamgarh on 27.1.1976-Annexure P/2, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(2.) FACTS in brief indicate that petitioner was owner of 66.22 Acres of agricultural land. According to the petitioner, the said land was owned by him even before the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 came into force and the cut-off date fixed under the Act was 1.1.1971. According to the petitioner apart from the aforesaid land, he also became owner of 51.91 Acres of land which came to him after death of his aunt-one Smt. Badi Dulaiya, in the year 1967. Accordingly, it is stated that prior to 1.1.1971 petitioner owned 119.33 Acres of land. Out of this land petitioner is alleged to have sold 31.88 Acres of land to respondent No. 2 in the year 1968 and it is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1968 possession of this land was handed over to respondent No. 2. Part consideartion was also taken, but the formality of executing the registered sale-deed was done only in the year 1972 i.e.after the cut-off date 1.1.1971. It is the case of the petitioner that for all practical pruposes the sale of this land to respondent No. 2 was affected in the year 1968 and the possession was also handed over in the year 1968, therefore, the transaction was valid.

(3.) FROM the facts that have come on record, it is clear that on the merits of the case, admittedly petitioner was holding land in excess of the permissible limit under the Act of 1960. However, it was the case of the petitioner that 31.88 Acres of land was sold by him to respondent No. 2, in the year 1968, but the sale deed executed in the year 1972, and further 28.81 Acres of land was gifted by him to his mother. Even though the SDO accepted the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner in the order-dated 27.1.1976 - Annexure P/2, but when the matter was reconsidered by the Additional Commissioner in his order-dated 19.12.1988 - Annexure P/4 and again by the Board of Revenue on 1.12.1989 vide Annexure P/5, the aforesaid transaction was found to be nothing but an illegal one to avoid liability under the Act of 1960. Both the authorities have recorded concurrent finding that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove these transactions and the contention of the petitioner that even though he had sold the land in the year 1968 but the formality for executing the sale-deed was undertaken in the year 1972, was found to be incorrect and the finding recorded is that the transactions took place after the appointed date i.e. 1.1.1971. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, nothing was pointed out to this Court as to how and on what ground the aforesaid finding concurrently arrived at by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue is found to be illegal. The only ground raised is that the Commissioner could not exercise the power of suo motu revision. If the orders passed in this regard are taken note, it would be seen that initially when the Commissioner refused to exercise the powers of suo motu revision, the Commissioner did so on the basis of certain orders passed by a Revenue Court, as is evident from Annexure P/3 dated 11.7.1980, but when the matter was considered by the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue on 3.3.1983 - vide Annexure P/7, found that a Bench of this Court in MP No. 95/1977 - Ramchandra Ram v. Competent Authority, Tikamgarh, has held that a revision before the Commissioner was maintainable and, therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Additional Commissioner. This order-dated 3.3.1983 was never challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner did not at that point of time assail the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner in exercising the powers of suo motu revision nor did he challenge the order-dated 3.3.1983, passed by the Additional Commissioner. Even before this Court, this order of remand dated 3.3.1983 is not challenged. On the contrary in the body of the petition, it is stated that this order is not available with the petitioner and, therefore, he is not filing the same. It was only filed after a period of two years of filing the writ petition on 27.7.2005, vide IA No. 6393/2005. When the Board of Revenue found that the Commissioner could entertain the powers of revision and when the revision was being considered by the Commissioner and when the proceedings were held before the Commissioner which culminated in passing of the order-dated 19.12.1988 - Annexure P/4, petitioner did not challenge the same, but participated in the revision proceedings without any objection. That being so, now after having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner, petitioner cannot now raise the ground before this Court. That apart, when the matter was adjudicated before the Board of Revenue, a perusal of the order passed by the Board vide Annexure P/5 on 1.12.1989 indicates that the Board of Revenue has taken note of the order passed earlier on 3.3.1983 and the order of the the High Court in Writ Petition No. 95/1977 - Ramcharan Ram v. Competent Authority, and there is nothing in the order of Board of Revenue that the petitioner has ever raised the question of jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner to exercise the powers of revision. Nothing is pointed out to this Court during the course of hearing to indicate as to whether any such objection was raised when the proceedings were pending before the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 158-A/90/(V-3)/87-88. Once the petitioner chose not to challenge the order of remand made by the Board of Revenue on 3.3.1983 and when the petitioner submitted to the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner, now petitioner cannot be permitted to take a turn around and assail the jurisdiction of the authority on the grounds raised particularly when the concurrent findings available on record is with regard to the fact that petitioner was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit and his contention that he had transferred theland before cut-off date i.e. 1.1.1971 is found to be incorrect by all the authorities.