USHADEVI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference made by two of us, sitting in a Division Bench, the following question has come up for the opinion of this Bench :

(2.) It may be appropriate to state briefly the facts giving rise to this reference. An order was passed on 31-12-1975 by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, acting as the "Competent Authority" under the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, for short, the 'Act'. The order was passed under Section 11(6) of the Act holding that the "holder" (land-holder) had no surplus land as could attract the provisions of Section 12 for those lands to vest in the State in accordance with the provisions thereof. It was found by him that the "family" held 345.64 acres of land of which 113.87 acres were in possession of occupancy tenants and the entitlement of the family to retain under the Act an area of 246 acres having been established, no surplus could be declared. That order is Annexure A of the petition. Application (Annexure B) appears to have been filed sometime before 13-3-1979 on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh. In that application, certain facts were stated in regard to the said order dated 31-12-1975 and the Board of Revenue, for short, the 'Board', was requested to exercise suo motu its power of revision to set aside that order. It was stated that the Competent Authority acted in clear violation of Section 4(5) of the Act in allowing set-off in respect of an area of 113.87 acres and that the entitlement otherwise also of the "holder" had been determined illegally, in violation of Section 7(1) of the Act as Bapurao could retain only 54 acres and under Hindu Law, on partition of a joint family; daughter being not entitled to any share, Smt. Malvika was wrongfully held entitled to retain 64 acres.

(3.) It appears that the instant petitioners were noticed on that application and their counsel entered appearance. He filed "written arguments" which form Annexure C of the petition. Therein, he raised contentions of facts and law dealing exhaustively with the submissions made in the application of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners, it appears, objected seriously against the prayer being allowed, submitting that the proceedings before the Competent Authority suffered no irregularity and the order passed by him was legal and valid. They also submitted that no action could be taken on the belated application.