DAYA RAM Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges the order dated 11.09.2007 whereby the Additional Collector, Bhopal has set aside the revenue entry in the name of the petitioner and directed that the said entry be recorded in the name of the State Government. The petitioner is also aggrieved by order of revisional Court (Commissioner Bhopal Division) dated 10.01.2011, whereby the revision of the petitioner is dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts and as narrated by the petitioner are that a lease (Patta) was granted in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority. The petitioner developed the said land, constructed boundary wall on the said land. For construction work, petitioner obtained loan from the Bank. The petitioner was cultivating the said land since 1990.

(3.) Ms. J. Aiyer, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one lady, Smt. Madhvilata who is holding adjacent land, preferred false complaint against the petitioner and his brother with a view to garb the land of the petitioner. It is urged that the said lady had god-fathers in the political arena of the State. Ms. Aiyer criticized the action of respondent No.2 in initiating suo motu revision proceedings against the petitioner. She submits that the show-cause notice dated 26.12.2006 (Annexure-P/7) was issued by the Additional Collector, Bhopal to the petitioner. The said notice itself makes it clear that the Patta was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the said show-cause notice. In addition, the petitioner prayed that the original relevant record including "Dyara Register" be summoned which will throw light regarding issuance of the relevant Patta. Ms. Aiyer submits that the said reasonable prayer of the petitioner was declined for irrelevant reasons. The decision making process adopted by the Additional Collector was not in consonance with law. The principles of natural justice were not followed. It is submitted that the findings are contrary to fact and based on irrelevant considerations. Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.20382/2011 (Jamna Prasad Vs. Commissioner and others) dated 04.02.2015. It is further urged that the order of Commissioner suffers from same infirmity. He mechanically affirmed the order of the Additional Collector. Lastly it is contended by Ms. Aiyer that as per the Full Board decision of this Court (Ranveer Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 4 MPLJ 178 ) the power of suo motu revision can be exercised within 180 days. In the present case, the said power is exercised belatedly and hence, the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.