HIRALAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been made in the following circumstances. In the year Samvat 2007, the petitioner was the recorded Ghair Maurusi Kashtakar of kh. No. 302 of village Chulheta and became, by virtue of the provisions of section 38 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, Samvat 2008, read with section 54 (7) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 the pucca tenant thereof. Since his name had been omitted from the Khasra prepared for the year Samvat 2008, he made to the Additional Tahsildar, Basoda, an application under section 116 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Code) for correction of that record by making therein an appropriate entry. By an order dated 5 November 1959, the Additional Tahsildar, Uderaj singh, allowed that application and directed that Khasra No. 302 be recorded in the petitioner's name in pucca tenancy right. After Uderajsingh was transferred and his office remained unfilled, one Mathura Prasad respondent (5) applied for a review of that order. By an order dated 16 August 1960, the Tahsildar of Basoda reviewed and set aside the earlier order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Basoda, who, by his order dated 31 October 1960, set aside the Tahsildar's order. On a further appeal by Mathura Prasad, tie Additional Commissioner, Bhopal, passed an order dated 26 May 1962 setting aside the appellate order and restored the one passed by the Tahsildar. Inereupon, the petitioner moved the Board of Revenue in revision. Since the point raised involved a (question of interpretation of section 51 of the Code, one of the Members of the Board referred it for opinion to two Members of the Board who, on 6 August 1963, opined that the offices of the Tahsildar and Additional Tahsildar were "one and the same" and that, for purposes of review under section 51 of the Code, the Tahsildar could be considered to be the successor in office of the Additional Tahsildar. In view of this opinion, the revision was dismissed on 3 February 1964. The petitioner prays that the aforesaid orders of the Tahsildar and the Additional Commissioner, the opinion of the Board and its final order dismissing the petitioner's revision should be called up and quashed by certiorari because the basic order passed by the Tahsildar suffers from the vice that he had no jurisdiction to review an order which had been passed by the Additional Tahsildar.

(2.) THIS order shall govern also Chhuttilal v. Tahsildar, Basoda and others M. P. No. 416 of 1964 decided on the 3rd December 1964., and Taj Mohammad v. Tahsildar, Basoda and others M. P. No. 417 of 1964 decided on the 3rd December 1984., which involve the same point arising out of similar facts.

(3.) IN the view we have taken of the main question in controversy, the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar and his (Tahsildar's) order dated 16 August 1960 cannot be sustained. So also the order dated 26 May 1962, the opinion dated 6 August 1963 and the order dated 3 February 1964.