VISHWANTAH GARODIA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN terms of direction already issued by this Court on earlier occasion, though no return has been filed, but it is fairly contended by learned Govt. Advocate that the matter can be heard finally. The controversy involved in the present writ petition against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division Jabalpur on 19.11.2012, is that when the order dated 9.2.2010 passed by the Collector Katni in exercise of power under Section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code of brevity) was sought to be challenged, the Additional Commissioner completely failed to appreciate the proviso prescribed under the said Section and though it was found that the sanction from the Board of Revenue was not obtained by the subsequent officer, but the review of the original order dated 13.10.2008 was ordered by the impugned order dated 9.2.2010. It is contended that the Collector Katni was not competent to pass the order dated 9.2.2010 without the sanction of the Board of Revenue and as such, the order impugned is bad in law.

(2.) IN fact, an order was passed by the Collector Katni on 13.10.2008 allowing transfer of the land of the petitioner. This order was sought to be reviewed by the very same authority and the very same person and certain reports from the Tahsildar were called. However, before any order could be passed, the incumbent holding the post of Collector Katni was transferred and another person was posted in his place. The another person exercised the power of review under Section 51 of the Code and passed the impugned order dated 9.2.2010. This order was called in question before the Additional Commissioner in appeal, but the said appeal has been dismissed on 19.11.2012, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed.

(3.) LEARNED Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents contends that since the finding is recorded by the Additional Commissioner that the proceedings were initiated by the Collector, who himself has passed the order on 13.10.2008, it was not necessary for the successor of the said person to obtain the sanction from the Board of Revenue. Thus, it is contended that if such a provisions is read and interpreted in this manner, the order impugned cannot be said to be bad in law.