SATYANARAIN Vs. LAL RAMA GOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are given in the order dated 31-5-1963 of the learned Additional Commissioner. In brief the only point to be decided in this case is how the applicants, before the Board of Revenue, namely, Satyanarain and others, are to be ejected from the lands in question.

(2.) AS will be shown below the net result of the numerous orders passed by the various authorities is that the order dated 5-1-1953 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner stands confirmed. The order dated 5-1-1953 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner mentioned above was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner in his order dated 16-1-1954. The order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner was, however, set aside by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 24-6-1955. Lal Rama Govind Singh, made an application to Judicial Commissioner, Rewa, who by his order dated 6-8-1956 set aside the order dated 24-6-1955 of the Board of Revenue and remanded the case for further consideration and disposal. The Board of Revenue again reconsidered the matter and by its order dated 13-6-1957 confirmed the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner. Satyanarain and others made an application for review to the Board of Revenue who rejected this application for review. Satyanarain and others then made a writ petition to the High Court which dismissed it. So as already mentioned above the order dated 5-1-1953 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner stands in the field and it is this order which has to be complied with.

(3.) WHEN the original order is passed in a case the case no longer remains pending. There may be appeals, revisions etc. but these are all separate proceed" ings which adjudicate whether the original order was correct or not and what modification should be made in it if it is not correct. Simply because appeals, revisions etc. are filed it does not mean that the original case remains pending during the periods of appeal and revision. According to the above principle the original case was disposed of on 5-1-1953 and all subsequent proceedings were for the purpose of finding out whether this order dated 5-1-1953 is correct or not. Now it has been finally decided that the order dated 5-1-1953 is correct. So simply because there were appeals etc. after 5-1-1953 it does not mean that the case remained pending at the commencement of the V. P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953. So section 228 (3) of the V. P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act has no application here. In fact no provision of the V. P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act applicable to the present case as the order dated 5-1-1253 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner is to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Rewa Code. According to clause (d) of the first proviso in section 261 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the M. P. Code) any remedy may be enforced as if the M. P. Code had not been passed. The net result of the above reasoning is that compliance of the order dated 5-1-1953 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner has to be done according to section 129 of the Rewa Code. The order dated 2-7-1962 of the Sub-Divisional Officer is set aside and the orders of the Naib-Tahsildar dated 2-4-1962 and of the Additional Commissioner dated 31-5-1963 are modified to the extent mentioned above. The ejectment of Satyanarain and others shall be carried out in the light of the remarks made above in this order. Order accordingly.