NARAIN LAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order dated 4-3-03 Annexure P- l passed by the Board of revenue and the order Annexure P-2, dated 28-11-2004 passed by Additional commissioner Chambal Division, Morena with regard to appointment of Patel of Village Har Gangoli, petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) WHEN a post of Patel in Village Har Gangoli, District Morena fell vacant in the year 1996, the Collector granted permission on 13-8-96 to fill up the post, accordingly, in pursuance to the order passed by the Collector, Sub divisional Officer Jaura, the Competent Authority initiated proceeding for appointment of Patel. On the basis of proclamation issued, five persons namely ajmer Singh respondent No. 5, Ramswaroop respondent No. 6, Narain Lal petitioner, Devilal and one Dhaniram submitted their applications, as ramswaroop, Devilal and Dhaniram failed to appear in spite of notice their applications were not considered. Application of petitioner Narain Lal and respondent No. 5 Azmer Singh was sent to the Tehsildar for enquiry and submission of his report by 20th December, 1999. From the records it is seen that tehsildar submitted the report only on 27-11-01 and pointed out that in the election held in accordance with rules respondent No. 5 Azmer Singh has received more votes. However after this report was received on 27-11-01 petitioner submitted an objection on 6-12-01 and pointed out that on 26-6-2000 by a registered sale deed respondent Azmer Singh has sold all his property situated in the village and as he is no more a recorded Bhoomiswami of any land in the village, he is not eligible to be appointed as Patel. Enquiry was conducted into the matter and finding respondents Azmer Singh is to have sold his entire land and finding him not to be a Bhoomiswami. Vide order dated 21-1-02, Sub divisional Officer appointed the petitioner Narain Lal as Patel of the village. Being aggrieved by this order of appointment Annexure P-4 appeal was filed before the Additional Collector, Morena by respondent No. 5 Azmer Singh. Appellate Authority found that the order of appointment passed by Sub divisional Officer is in accordance with the statutory provision and dismissed the appeal, on further appeal being filed under Section 44 of the M. P. Land revenue Code to the Additional Commissioner, Additional Commissioner has held that on the date of submission of the application as Azmer Singh was a bhoomiswami the subsequent sale of land by him is of no consequence and by relying upon a judgment of the Board of Revenue in the case of Dhansram Vs. Mayaram and others, 1975 RN 449, held that Azmer Singh is eligible to be appointed as Patel as he has acquired more votes than the petitioner. Accordingly appointment of petitioner made by the Sub Divisional Officer and affirmed by the Additional Collector was quashed and respondent No. 5 Azmer singh was directed to be appointed as Patel. Being aggrieved by this order dated 28-11-02 Annexure P-2 passed by the Additional Commissioner further revision filed before the Board of Revenue which having been dismissed, petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.

(3.) SHRI M. P. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the petitioner inviting my attention to the provision of Section 222 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and rules relating to appointment of Patel as notified by State Government submitted that it is only a person recorded as Bhoomiswami who is eligible to be appointed as Patel and as respondent No. 5 Azmer Singh was not a bhoomiswami, the Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue have committed error in the matter and accordingly he seeks for interference.