MANJEET BHALLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition NO. 4299/06 whereby the learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant challenging the order dated 14.8.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior.

(2.) FACTS of the case, narrated briefly stated, are that the present appellants had approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition with allegation that village Aaukhana Khurd was a Zamindari village. The Ex Zamindar one Pandurang Rao had leased out the disputed land which is survey number 195, 218 and 219 of one Bapu Shaheb Temak in the year 1948-49. On abolition of Zamindari, said Bapu Saheb Temak became the Pucca Krishak of the said land and consequently, on coming into force the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 he acquired the status of Bhoomiswami. After the death of said Bapu Saheb Temak, his son Shiv Singh inherited the said property. Said Shivsingh sold the aforesaid three survey numbers to one Ramnath vide registered sale deed dated 18.4.1975. Said Ramnath executed a Will on 21.11.1986 in favour of the present appellants. Ramnath died on 13.12.1987. Thus, the present appellants became the owner of the property.

(3.) THE first contention raised by Shri M.N. Krishnamani, Advocate on behalf of the appellants writ petitioners is that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal and contrary to law. THE learned writ Court has not considered the fact that the title of the property in question is already decided by the civil Court in favour of the present appellants and therefore, the learned writ Court has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. It is further contended that the learned writ Court has completely ignored the impact of the judgment passed by the civil Court between the same parties. He also contended that exercising powers of suo motu review after expiry of four years is illegal and contrary to law in view of the judgments of the apex Court in the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Suppl. Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 and M/s. S.B. Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India and others, (1976) 2 SCC 181. In both these cases, the apex Court has laid down that suo motu powers of review should be exercised within a reasonable time. As per the said judgments of the apex Court, "reasonable time depends upon facts and circumstances of each case but it may not be above six months. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned single judge has not considered this aspect of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the State Government was a party to the suit which was filed in respect of the same property and is bound by the said judgment and decree. Hence the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to arrive at any conclusion contrary to the judgment of the civil Court so far as title is concerned. It is next contended that so far as adjacent land is concerned, neighbourers of the appellants had filed civil suit in which it was held that Bapu Saheb Temak was Bhoomiswami of the land and this judgment is upheld upto the apex Court. In view of all these facts, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner impugned before the learned writ Court deserves to be set aside.