STATE OF M P Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IF ever a controversy had arisen from the ashes and risen like the mythical phoenix, the present litigation does fresco a picture, a complete one on that score, albeit on keener scrutiny of the factual matrix. Time is neither imprisoned by man nor does it a restive pause by acts of men. An application under Section 172 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') preferred by the original respondent, Radharaman, created a stir in the minds of respondent No. 3, namely, Gining Wali Jamni Bachao Sangharsha Samiti (fore brevity 'the Samiti') as if a Tsunami is likely to change the course of sea. The application pertained to the grant of permission for diversion. After the permission for diversion was granted as per Annexure P-8 on 28-6-1988 by the Competent Authority, namely, Sub Divisional Officer, Kukshi, District Dhar, the respondent No. 3 sprung into action by filing a complaint that such permission at the instance of Radharaman was totally impermissible since the lease in question was granted in view of Annexure R-3/1 in the year 1925 by which a condition was incorporated by the Competent Authority of the Holkar State that the lease would remain in vogue if a ginning factory is established on the land in question. On the receipt of the aforesaid complaint that Collector, Dhar, initiated a proceeding under Section 50 of the Act in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction for cancellation of the order passed by the SDO granting permission of diversion and after such initiation the original respondent No. 2, Radharaman, was asked to profer his explanation. Being dissatisfied with the explanation offered the Collector came to hold that Radharaman was not the Bhumiswami and he did not disclose the same while obtaining permission for diversion inasmuch as he was not the Bhumiswami who could have applied for diversion and further steps should be taken by the State Government to get the lease vested in itself inasmuch as the lease deed that was executed by the Competent Authority of the Holkar State in favour of predecessor-in-interest of Radharaman was a conditional one. In addition, the Collector also directed that the mutation effected in favour of Radharaman in the year 1961 should be lanceted by exercising suo motu jurisdiction in another independent suo motu revision. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the original respondent No. 2 preferred revision before the Commissioner Indore Division, Indore under Section 50 of the Act, as the order was passed by the Collector and the matter was eventually heard by the Additional Commissioner who affirmed the order passed by the Collector. As the grievance of the respondent No. 2 did not stand mitigated, he preferred a further revision as postulated under Section 50 of the Act. The Board of Revenue addressed itself with regard to three core issues, namely, whether the SDO was justified in granting the permission for diversion of the land in question under Section 172 of the Code; whether the Collector, Dhar was correct in exercising the suo motu power of revision after long lapse of time; and whether the original respondent No. 2 had acquired the Bhumiswami status by virtue of the law prevalent at the relevant time inasmuch as the law was codified afterwards in the year 1931 by an enactment called Indore Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1931 (Act No. 10 of 1931 ).

(2.) THE Board of Revenue upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a studied scrutiny of the material brought on record came to hold that in the absence of any kind of contrary stipulation in the Act of 1931 and keeping in view that there are some entries which recorded that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 2 was an agriculturist in his right and nothing had been brought on record by the authorities of the State that he had acquired Bhumiswami status and further mutation was done in favour of the respondent in the year 1961. Quite apart from the above, the Board, of Revenue expressed the opinion that exercise of power by the Collector in invocation of suo motu jurisdiction after long lapse of time was not warranted.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bagadia, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. K. Gupta for the legal representative of the original respondent No. 2 and Mr. S. G. Gokhle for the respondent No. 3 the initial initiator.