SIDHA AHIR Vs. DEVIDIN & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 80 of 1970 (Deonath v/s. Devidin and others). In these writ petitions the two petitioners challenge the order dated 19 -7 -1969, passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, allowing the revision of the first respondent and dismissing the petitioner's application for allotment of land under S. 162 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which was deleted from the statute book with effect from 23 -4 -1964, vide Amendment Act No. 25 of 1964.

(2.) The petitioner Sidha applied for allotment of Khasra Nos. 305, 409, 436 and 600, while the petitioner, Deonath applied for allotment of Khasra Nos. 168, 169, 174, 175 and 465 under S. 162 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The first respondent, Devidin, who was a former Pavaidar, claimed that land to be his on the basis that it was his Sir land and asserted that he had been in possession. An application to the Tahsildar was made on behalf of the petitioner on 5 -8 -1961. The Tahsildar, by order, dated 5 -4 -1962 negatived the contention of the first respondent and allotted the land to the respective petitioner. Against that order the first respondent filed an appeal before the Sub -Divisional Officer, who, as per the order dated 21 -8 -1967 (Petitioner's Annexure -A/2) rejected the appeal. A second appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner was also dismissed vide order dated 29 -3 -1968 (Petitioner's Annexure -A/3). However, the Board of Revenue by order, dated 19 -7 -1969 (Petitioner's Annexure -A/4) allowed the revisions filed by the first respondent, with the result that the allotment of land made in favour of the respective petitioner stood cancelled. The Claim of the first respondent, Devidin claiming the land for himself was also rejected. As regard the question whether the case should be remanded to the Court of the Tahsildar, the Board of Revenue expressed the opinion that as Sec. 162 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959, had been deleted from the statute book, there was no ground for remanding the case to the Court of Tahsildar and no fresh allotment could be made in favour of a person after the appeal of the section. At this stage it is relevant to note that the Board of Revenue recorded a specific finding that the order of allotment passed in favour of the respective petitioner was illegal inasmuch as the procedure prescribed by rule 9 of the rules framed under S. 162 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, had not been followed and the conditions mentioned in that rule did not exist. In that view of the matter the Board of Revenue refused to remit the case of the respective petitioner to the Tahsildar for a fresh consideration. Thus, by implication the petitioner's application for allotment of land stood dismissed. The present writ petitions are directed against the said order passed by the Board of Revenue.