RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. TARADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ramachandra Rao and Bhaskar Rao are real brothers. They owned agricultural land in this State in the district of Shivpuri. The then revenue authorities formed an opinion that the land owned by the appellants and located in survey numbers 248 to 252 is required to be dealt with under the Madhya Bharat Land Utilization Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No.38 of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Utilization Act). Before noticing the various contentions which have been raised in this appeal, it would be apt to notice the scheme of the above Act.

(2.) Any land which was not being put under cultivation and which land was described as fallow land was to be used for the purposes of the Utilization Act. However, before doing this, the owner was required to be given a notice in terms of Section 3(4) of the Utilisation Act. If objections were not filed, or these objections were found to be without merit, then further steps could be taken under sub-section (5). The land could be given on patta to a person interested in putting the land under plough. The period for which this land could be given was fixed at five years. This is apparent from Section 4(5) of the Utilization Act. There was statutory obligation cast on the lessee to restore the land. This statutory obligation can be spelled out from the reading of Section 4(9) of the aforementioned Act. Before further proceeding, it would be apt to notice the relevant statutory provisions, that is, Section 3(4), (5) and Section 4(5) and 4(9) of the Ultilization Act. These read as under :

(3.) It is not in dispute-that S. Nos. 248 to 252 were made subject-matter of utilization under the aforementioned Act. An order to this effect was passed on 5th of April, 1952. This land came to be allotted to about 25 persons. One of the persons to whom the land was allotted was Bhagwandas. His name is not shown to the memorandum of parties, so far as this litigation is concerned. Document Ex. D/ 1 has been placed on the record. This is the order passed by the Board of Revenue. This is dated 3rd June, 1955. The fact that the land was put to use under the Utilization Act is apparent from this Ex. D/ 1. The further fact is that the present appellants challenged the allotment made in favour of Bhagwandas. This challenge was found to be futile up to the Commissioner's level. The matter was taken to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that the order which was passed under Section 3(4) was an order which was passed without giving notice to Bhagwandas. It accordingly, concluded that the order passed by the Collector under the Utilisation Act taking over the agricultural land of Bhagwandas was null and void. The order passed by the Board of Revenue as indicated above is Ex. D/ 1. When this order was sought to be executed, an objection was taken by Bhagwandas. This objection was to the effect that as the Board of Revenue had not afforded any opportunity of hearing to him therefore order Ex. D/ 1 could not be executed. It was further pleaded by him that a matter of fact, he was not a party before the Board of Revenue. This aspect of the matter again found favour with the subordinate revenue hierarchy up to Commissioner's level. It was held that the order passed by the Board of Revenue Ex. D/I cannot be executed against Bhagwandas. The matter was again taken before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that the order Ex. D/ 1 could be executed. The copy, of this order is Ex. D/3. This order is dated 15th of January, 1963. A review was preferred. This review came to be dismissed on l3th of March, 1964. The copy of this order has been placed on the record as Ex. D/2.