CHARAN SINGH Vs. BHARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dtd. 28/5/2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division District Bhopal in Appeal No.853/2017-18 whereby while allowing the appeal, order passed by SDO dtd. 9/3/2019 in first appeal No.853/2017-18 was set-aside wherein the order passed by Tehsildar dtd. 16/6/2017 in case NO.85/A-6-A/15-16 whereby the application for correction of entries in revenue records preferred by the present petitioner was rejected, set-aside.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued before this Court that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner in the second appeal is per se illegal and dehors the provisions of deleted Sec. 116 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 wherein an entry made in the land records prepared under Sec. 114 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 in respect of matters other than those referred to in Sec. 108, could be corrected within one year of the date of such entry and for that the person is required to move an appropriate application before the Tehsildar for such correction within one year and only in those cases where corrections with regard to any entry made as per Sec. 114 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 are sought, the period of limitation of one year would come into play but as in the present case, since it was not correction of an entry made as per Sec. 114 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 which deals with land record prepared for every village rather it was a case of correction of entry of land bearing survey No.299/2 situated at village Dharukhedi, Tahsil Kurwai District Vidisha, having area meantioned 24 and a half Bigha in the Khasra till year 1962-63, but later on was reduced by 10 Bigha and was included in survey number belonging to the respondents making their survey number in excess by 10 Bigha i.e. 298/2 area 28 Bigha 2 Biswa whereas the actual area in the village map of the lands of respondents was 18 Bigha 2 Biswa which was a mistake committed by Revenue Officers at the time of making entries in the records which deserves to be corrected but on technical ground of delay in moving the application, the application was firstly rejected by Tehsildar and thereafter the Additional Commissioner had allowed the second appeal and had set-aside the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer whereby it was directed to correct the area of the survey numbers which appears to be wholly perverse and illegal.

(3.) While referring to Sec. 108 and 114 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, it was argued that as per Sec. 108(1)(a) the Revenue Authorities are required to prepare record-of-rights and maintain the same for every village area and for each sector of every urban area and such record shall include the names of all Bhumiswamis together with survey numbers or plot numbers held by them and purposes for which they are being used and their area and status of irrigation in case of land used for agriculture and as per Sec. 114 the revenue authorities are required to prepare land records for every village which would include village map, abadi map and block map as per Sec. 177, record of rights under Sec. 108, village khasra or village field book in such Form as may be prescribed, Bhoo-Adhikar Pustika under Sec. 114-A, details of all unoccupied land under Sec. 233, Nistar Patrak under Sec. 234, Wajib-ul-arz, if any, under Sec. 242, details of diverted land and any other record as may be prescribed so on so forth. As per Sec. 116 (now deleted), if any person is aggrieved by an entry made in the land records prepared under Sec. 114 in respect of matters other than those referred to in Sec. 108, he shall apply to the Tahsildar within one year for correction of such entry, which makes it clear that if the issue involved relates to Sec. 108 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, then the limitation of period of one year as provided under Sec. 116 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 shall not be applicable. Thus, the learned Commissioner has erroneously construed the aforesaid provisions and had allowed the appeal preferred by the present respondents which deserves to be set-aside.