ONKARLAL GANGA PRASHAD Vs. SARDAR KHAN RASOAL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner applied for allotment of the land in dispute under Section 162 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code which was subsequently repealed. This application was allowed and the land in question was allotted to the petitioner on 26-11-1960. Subsequently on an objection filed against the allotment the Tehsildar reviewed the order of allotment by an order dated 5-3-1962 and the grant of Patta was set aside. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer against the said order which was disallowed on 8-6-1962. He, thereupon, preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner which was allowed on 31-12-1963 and the case was remanded to tile S. D. O. for a fresh decision of the appeal. On remand, the S. D. O. by an order dated 27-1-1965 set aside the order of the Tehsildar and remanded the case for considering afresh the question of review. On a reconsideration, the Tehsildar again set aside the Patta on 3-4-1967 by reviewing the original order. The petitioner again preferred an appeal before the S. D. O. This appeal was allowed and the order of the Tehsildar was set aside and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on 20-9-1968. In the course of this order of the s. D. O. observed that the Tehsildar should also review the grant of Patta in favour of respondent No. 1 to whom the land had been allotted under Executive instructions after the repeal of Section 162. Against this order respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the S. D. O. mainly on the ground that since Section 162 of the Code had been repealed the question of right of petitioner to the grant of patta could not be considered in the light of its earlier decision in devlalsingh v. Nandansingh, 1968 RN 324 (BR ). Being aggrieved by this decision the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) AT the very outset we may observe that we are not going to consider the question whether the order granting Patta in favour of the petitioner was proper or not. All that we have to consider is whether the Board was right in holding that the petitioner had lost his right to agitate the matter on account of repeal of Section 162. Section 162 was repealed with effect from 23-4-1964.