BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition for reviewing or modifying the order passed by this Court in MP No. 276/92 on 11.9.1995. Petitioners of this MCC are also a allot tees of land and they are in possession, according to their submission. Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal vide order dated 30.5.] 984 directed the Collector to take up the matter under suo motu revision and consider the validity of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Lateri vide order dated 8.5.1979. It was contended that the allotment was made by Tahsildar Lateri without informing the parties and without following the due process of law. Sub -Divisional Officer, Sironj examined the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties vide order dated 24.1.1990 set aside the entire allotment made by Tahsildar, Lateri vide order dated 8.5.1979 and remanded the case to him for fresh allotment in accordance with law and after hearing the earlier allottees. This order of Sub -Divisional Officer was also challenged by the respondents before the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal. Vide order dated 20.9.1990, Commissioner rejected the revision saying that the order passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer is perfectly legal. Before the Commissioner, an application was filed by the petitioners of this MCC for joining them as parties but that application was rejected as they were not party in the suo motu revision petition. Again the State Government took up the matter in the suo motu revision and vide order dated 25.7.1991 maintained the order of the Sub -Divisional as well as Commissioner and found that the original order of allotment dated 8.5.1979 passed by the Tahsildar was not legal and in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 4 filed the aforesaid writ petition before this Court in which the petitioners were not made as party. From the proceedings before the Sub -Divisional Officer, it is clear that the petitioners were heard on the question of validity of the allotment made by the Tahsildar and thereafter orders were passed.

(2.) FROM the perusal of the record it is clear that the Sub -Divisional Officer, Commissioner and the State Government has not found the allotment of the land in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 4 proper and legal and, therefore, set aside the same but learned Single Judge without hearing the petitioners considered the question that suo motu powers cannot be exercised in this case and set aside the finding of the three Courts below on the ground that petitioners are also having no other land and they are also landless persons. In fact, such a question was a question of fact which has to be decided by the competent Court after considering the various aspects of the matter. From the impugned order it appears that the learned single Judge has not considered the repeated orders passed by the Revenue Officers about the allotment of land. When a direction was given that matter be considered afresh in accordance with law and the previous allottees be provided an opportunity of hearing and it be considered whether those who are in possession over the land and are entitled for allotment or not. Thus, we find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, we set aside the impugned order dated 11.9.1995 and remand the case to the learned Single Judge to decide the matter afresh. Petitioners before this Court may file an appropriate application before the Writ Court for joining them as party and such an application shall only be considered by the Writ Court.