MOTISINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of the Commissioner, Bhopal, dated 30 -8 -58 passed in Second Appeal No. 215 of 1958. The short facts are that the applicants are Mourusi tenants of survey No. 433 by virtue of a patta dated 8 -4 -50 given by their father. They applied for correction of entry in village papers under section 51 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar rejected the application on the ground that the applicants could not prove their possession over the field. On appeal the Sub -Divisional Officer upheld the finding of the trial Court. In second appeal the learned Commissioner confirmed the findings of the lower Courts. Hence this revision. The following are the grounds: -

(2.) THAT the judgment of the second appellate Court is not in conformity with law and as such it is no judgment at all. That the long possession prior to Jamidari Abolition has satisfactorily been proved but the Commissioner has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and as such the judgment is liable to be set aside in revision. The whole judgment of the Commissioner runs in one para. and the relevant portion is reproduced below: - à ¤ ‡Ã  ¤ ¸ à ¤ ¸Ã  ¤ ‚à ¤ ¬Ã  ¤ ‚à ¤ § à ¤ ®Ã  ¥ ‡Ã  ¤ ‚ à ¤ ¤Ã  ¥ ‡Ã  ¤ ¹Ã  ¤ ¸Ã  ¥ €Ã  ¤ ² à ¤ ¤Ã  ¤ ¥Ã  ¤ ¾ à ¤ ¸Ã  ¤ ¬ - à ¤ ¡Ã  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ µÃ  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ œÃ  ¤ ¨Ã  ¤ ² à ¤ †Ã  ¤ «Ã  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ ¸Ã  ¤ ° à ¤ •Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ ¨Ã  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ £Ã  ¤ ¯ à ¤ ªÃ  ¤ ° à ¤ ¸Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ ¯Ã  ¤ ¹ à ¤ ¸Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ ªÃ  ¤ ·Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ Ÿ à ¤ ªÃ  ¥ Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¤ ¤Ã  ¥ €Ã  ¤ ¤ à ¤ ¹Ã  ¥ ‹Ã  ¤ ¤Ã  ¤ ¾ à ¤ ¹Ã  ¥ ˆ à ¤ •Ã  ¤ ¿ à ¤ ...à ¤ ªÃ  ¥ €Ã  ¤ ²Ã  ¤ ¨Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ Ÿ à ¤ ¨Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ œÃ  ¤ ®Ã  ¥ €Ã  ¤ ‚à ¤ ¦Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¥ € à ¤ ¸Ã  ¤ ®Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ªÃ  ¥ Ã  ¤ ¤Ã  ¤ ¿ à ¤ µÃ  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ §Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ¨ à ¤ •Ã  ¥ € à ¤ §Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¤ ¾ 51 à ¤ •Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ ...à ¤ ‚à ¤ ¤Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ -à ¤ ¤ à ¤ ¶Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ¸Ã  ¤ ¨ à ¤ ¨Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ µÃ  ¥ Ã  ¤ ¯Ã  ¤ µÃ  ¤ ¸Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ ¥Ã  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ ¤ à ¤ ¹Ã  ¥ ‹Ã  ¤ ¨Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ µÃ  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ²Ã  ¥ € à ¤ ­Ã  ¥ ‚à ¤ ®Ã  ¤ ¿ à ¤ •Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ ŠÃ  ¤ ªÃ  ¤ ° à ¤ ...à ¤ ªÃ  ¤ ¨Ã  ¤ ¾ à ¤ ¨Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ® à ¤ ¤Ã  ¤ ¥Ã  ¤ ¾ à ¤ ¹Ã  ¤ • à ¤ ªÃ  ¥ Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¤ ¸Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ ¥Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ªÃ  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ ¤ à ¤ •Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¤ ¨Ã  ¥ ‡ à ¤ •Ã  ¤ ¾ à ¤ ªÃ  ¥ Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¤ ¯Ã  ¤ ¾Ã  ¤ ¸ à ¤ •Ã  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ ¯Ã  ¤ ¾ à ¤ œÃ  ¥ ‹ à ¤ •Ã  ¤ ¿ à ¤ ¸Ã  ¤ °Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ µÃ  ¤ ¥Ã  ¤ ¾ à ¤ ...à ¤ ¨Ã  ¥ Ã  ¤ šÃ  ¤ ¿Ã  ¤ ¤ à ¤ ¹Ã  ¥ ˆ | The observations of the learned Commissioner quoted above, are intelligible. In short it is apparent That he has failed to apply his mind to the real issue before him whether the applicants have proved their possession on the basis of evidence. His order runs in 10 or 12 lines, in eight lines the brief facts are stated and in three or four lines the whole finding is given. In my opinion it is not a judicial order and must be set aside as it does not state as to what were the points for determination; the determination thereupon and the reasons for the determination. Moreover section 51 of the Zamindari Abolition Act has nothing to do with the present case and it appears That the learned second appellate Court has unnecessarily quoted That section. In my opinion the order to be passed in second appeal should be self -contained and the impugned order is passed totally in ignorance of the basic principles of writing an order. In result the order of the Commissioner is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh decision in the light of observations made above. Parties to bear their own costs.