SHUJAAT ALI ZAIDI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal against the order dt.24.10.2013 passed by the writ court in W.P.No.709/2012. He has also challenged the order 11.1.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.1896 -PBR/2011.

(2.) THE appellant purchased land of survey No.296 area 6.25 acres situated at village Sol Sikankar, Tahsil Sanwer, District Indore vide registered sale deed dt.2.5.1997 from Mehtab S/o Anar Singh. His name was recorded as Bhumiswami of the land in the revenue record after mutation. It was deleted subsequently. He came to know about the said fact on 28.2.2011 when he received copies of khasra entries. Then he filed an appeal against the order of mutation before the SDO. He pleaded that no notice was issued to him before recording the name of respondent No.2 as owner of the land neither he had executed any document in regard to transfer of ownership of the land, hence, the order of mutation was illegal and without any authority. He also filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that he had received information about the transfer of ownership in 2011 when he received certified copy of the khasra entry. The SDO allowed the appeal and recorded a finding that in mutation register, the Revenue Officer did not record the finding that on what basis he had recorded the name of respondent No.2 as owner of the land. It was recorded in the mutation register that the entry was made on the basis of general power of attorney. No notice was issued to the appellant before mutation and Rule 27 was not followed neither any signature of any witness was taken at the time of mutation. Consequently, SDO set aside the order of mutation. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner. He dismissed the appeal, then a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue allowed the revision on the ground that the appellant got information about the order on 25.6.2002 and thereafter he did not file appeal for a period of nine years, hence, the authority - SDO committed an error in allowing the application for limitation and allowed the revision. Against the aforesaid order, a writ petition was filed by the respondent No.2, that has been dismissed by the writ court on the ground that no error of jurisdiction was committed by the Board of Revenue because the appellant filed the appeal after inordinate delay.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant has contended that both the authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that a fraud was committed by the respondent No.2 and right of ownership of the land of the appellant has been taken away without any legal basis, hence, the appellant had a right to file an appeal at any time because fraud vitiates everything. He has further contended that the appeal is maintainable because the appellant filed the writ petition questioning the propriety of the order passed by the Board of Revenue. The appellant sought a writ of certiorari and the court has refused to issue the aforesaid writ in favour of the appellant, hence, the court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, although in the order it has been mentioned that the court exercised the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.