SITARAM BHAGATRAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 12-6-89 passed by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur in suo motu Revision No. 66/a-19/87-88 initiated under Section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ).

(2.) SANS unnecessary details, the essential facts for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner, being a landless person, had applied to the Naib Tahsildar, Bilaspur, Respondent No. 3, for grant of 0. 04 acre of land out of Khasra No. 1139/1 under the provisions of the Code. The Competent Authority, taking into consideration the provisions of the Code, read with M. P. Gramo Me Ki Dakhal Rahit Bhumi (Vishes Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1970, granted a Patta in favour of the petitioner. The said Patta has been brought on record as Annexure P/2.

(3.) AFTER obtaining of the Patta, the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, constructed a house by spending a huge amount. While he was in the enjoyment of the said house, a notice to show cause was issued to him by the Additional Collector, Bilaspur indicating certain grounds why the Patta granted in his favour should not be cancelled. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause before the Competent Authority contending, inter alia, that there was no illegality in the grant of the Patta as provisions had been duly complied with at the time of grant. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had spent a huge amount in construction of the house where he was residing. It was pleaded that the petitioner had spent about Rs. 67,000/- in the said construction. The Additional Collector, after hearing the parties, vide Annexure-P-1, came to hold that there had been non-compliance of procedure in granting the Patta, and hence it was liable for cancellation and, accordingly he cancelled the order granting the Patta. The Additional Collector had also recorded a finding that the land in question was the 'nistar' land and, therefore, the Patta could not have been granted in favour of the petitioner.