RAMCHARAN PARMANAND Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23-3-1994 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior. It has arisen out of the following facts:

(2.) A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they were the owner and in possession of Survey No. 199/1 measuring. 314 hectares situated at tahsil Bhander, District-Gwalior, and the order passed by the defendant/respondent No. 2 in case No. 2/87-88/ni. 20 (l) dated 16-5-1988 was illegal and without jurisdiction. A relief for permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendants and their subordinates from interfering in plaintiffs' possession over the suit lands. They claimed that the suit land was allotted under a patta by the Naib Tahsildar, Bhander on 14-12-1983 in Case No. 297/83-84-A/19 and the plaintiffs were granted bhumiswami rights from the date of allotment. The plaintiffs have been in possession and doing cultivation over the land. The plaintiffs had also been in possession from before allotment for about 40 years and taking into consideration this fact the patta was granted. On the basis of the pattas their names were also mutated in khasra. The respondent No. 2 i. e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhander acting suo motu as a revising Court cancelled the pattas by order dated 16-5-1988 passed in Case No. 297/83-84-A/19 on the ground that the pattas were forged. The conclusions of the Sub-Divisional Officer were incorrect. The plaintiffs were not given opportunity to be heard. It violated the principle of natural justice. It was without jurisdiction. They filed writ petition before this Court (Misc. Petition No. 666/88) which was disposed of on 14-9-1990 and the plaintiffs were directed to file a civil suit. Hence, they filed the present suit. The defendants contested the claim and alleged that the plaintiffs were not the bhumiswamis. The facts alleged were concocted. The pattas dated 14-12-1983 in Case No. 297/83-84-A/19 were wrong and forged. After making due enquiry and following the procedure prescribed the forged pattas were cancelled on 16-5-1988 in Misc. Case No. 2/87-88-A/20 (1 ). The plaintiffs were liable to be prosecuted. They were never in possession. It was incorrect that they have been in possession for the last 40 years. The mutation was got on the basis of forged pattas which have been cancelled. The plaintiffs ought to have filed an appeal against the order of cancellation of pattas and as such the suit was not maintainable. The learned trial Court framed issues that arose from the pleadings of the parties, took evidence, and heard the parties and after considering the entire material dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiffs/appellants were allotted the land in dispute under a valid patta by the competent authority. They were also in possession from before the allotment in their favour for about 40 years. They, therefore, were the owners of the disputed land. The Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel the Pattas exercising the revisional jurisdiction suo motu. Learned counsel also urged that in any case the order of cancellation was passed without giving any opportunity to the plaintiffs which was against the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel referred to the provisions of Section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and argued that this provision confers the revisional jurisdiction on the authorities mentioned therein. It does not include a Sub-Divisional Officer. Reference has also been made to clause 3 which provides that a notice has to be given. As no opportunity was given, the impugned order is illegal. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that under the Revenue Book Circular power to make allotment was conferred on the Naib-Tahsildar. The pattas alleged by the plaintiffs were forged documents and on the basis of forged documents mutation was got effected. After the enquiry the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cancelled the pattas. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was without jurisdiction. He also pointed out that an amendment has been made in the Revenue Book Circular under which the Sub-Divisional Officer was conferred revising power. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit initially before the Sub-Divisional Officer as provided Under Section 57 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and thereafter should have approached the Civil Court. The suit was, therefore, not maintainable.