NARAIN SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for review of an order dated 20 August, 1959 by which Miscellaneous Petition No. 254 of 1957 was dismissed. That petition was directed against ah order" of the Board of Revenue. Madhya Pradesh, dated 8 February, 1957 whereby its own earlier order dated 15 February 1951 confirming the sale of malik -makbuza plot No. 32 of village Gorakhpur, together with a house Standing thereon, was reviewed, the confirmation of sale was set aside and a fresh confirmation of that sale was interdicted.

(2.) IT is urged by the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents that the order dated 20 August 1959, which was passed on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot, in the absence of any power conferred by the statute, be reviewed at all. Reliance is placed upon In Re Pralhad Krishna Kurne : ILR 1951 Bom 181 F. B. and Hajee Sule man v. Custodian, Evacuee Property , 1955 MBLJ 300 :, AIR 1955 MB 108. These cases lend some support to the Respondents, but a contrary view was taken in Chen channa v. Praja Sewa Transports Limited , ILR 1952 Mad 1000 and Dan Singh v. Additional Collector, Bijnor : AIR 1960 All 152. The last -mentioned case is very similar to this case. The controversy also appears to have been quieted by the view taken by the Supreme Court in Shivdev Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and others, Civil Appeal No. 265 of 1958 dated 8 February 1961.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the points in controversy, it is necessary to refer to the facts of this case. One Chunnilal owned plot No. 32 on which he had erected a residential house of substantial value. By a registered sale deed dated 3 March 1948, he sold the plot, wrongly mentioning it as plot No. 28, together with the house, to Ganeshilal tor a sum of Rs. 13,900/ -. It transpired that Chunnilal had not paid Rs. 13/ - due as land revenue in respect of the plot for the year 1947 48. To recover that amount, a warrant of attachment of Movable property was issued against Chunnilal. In trying to execute that warrant, the revenue process -server discovered that Chunnilal was untraceable and he was also informed that the house had been sold to one Ramnath Pathak. Without issuing notice to the vendee or taking any other step for recovering from him the arrears, the Tahsildar decided to sell the plot together with the house. As required by rule XIV, a report dated 21 April 1948 with reference to Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 138(2) of the Act was obtained and, thereupon, it was proposed by the Tahsildar, and sanctioned on 18 October 1948 by the Sub -Divisional Officer, that the property be sold under Section 128 (f) of the Act. After proclaiming the sale in advance, it was held from 18 January 1949 to 24 January 1949. The Petitioner was the only bidder and he too appeared on the last mentioned date, when his bid of Rs. 500/ - was accepted.