MAHAVIR PRASAD SHARMA Vs. NAGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with the grievance that the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code vide order dated 19/11/2007 confirmed the order passed by the Collector, Sheopur on 27/7/2004 in his appellate jurisdiction, whereunder challenge to the orders dated 30/10/2001 and 3/12/2001 passed by the Tahsildar at the instance of respondent was turned down. However, the Board of Revenue in its revisional jurisdiction at the instance of respondents has though found no illegality in the original orders passed by the Tahsildar, but in the last paragraph has made certain observations and directions in the context of Order XLIV Rule 2 (2) CPC directing the Tahsildar to deal with the application filed in that behalf by the parties. Learned senior counsel submits that Order XLIV Rule 2 (2) CPC deals with indigent person. Either party did not raise any issue related to the status of the petitioner as indigent person. As such, the observations and directions, so made, are wholly unwarranted and out of context and, therefore, cannot be sustained. This position is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. However, learned counsel for respondent contends that it appears that by mistake on the part of Board of Revenue instead of directing the Tahsildar to address upon the issues raised by the respondent before him, the aforesaid observation has been made.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court, as the Board of Revenue at more than one place in the last paragraph has referred to the Order XLIV Rule 2 (2) CPC and made mandatory direction, hence, it is necessary to observe that no dispute as regards indigent person is before the Tahsildar, therefore, such observation is wholly unwarranted and, hence, ignored. However, the matter since has already been remanded back to the Tahsildar for decision afresh, it is considered apposite to observe that the Tahsildar shall afford full opportunity to either party to raise the grounds available to them on facts and in law as well as two fold issues which learned counsel for respondent had raised before the Tahsildar and find mention in the order passed by the Board of Revenue.

(3.) With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of. At this stage, both parties submit that the revenue proceedings under Section 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code are pending for last 16 years, hence, direction may be issued to the Tahsildar to expedite the proceedings and decide the same finally expeditiously.