JUGAL KISHORE Vs. TAHSILDAR
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE circumstances in which this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution has been filed are that on 10th January 1955 the Nyaya Panchayat, nagod, made an order for the allotment of a piece of land lying in the area of the gram Panchayat, Nagod, to the petitioner on his paying a certain Nazarana. The petitioner paid the Nazarana and secured the land. Thereafter, according to him, when he commenced the construction of a house on the plot, the Patwari reported to the Assistant Collector Satna, that the applicant had encroached upon the land. On this report, the Assistant Collector directed the Tehsildar to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the order of allotment. This order of the Assistant Collector was, however, ultimately set aside by the Board of Revenue on 15th July 1959.
(2.) IN 1964 on the report of the Gram Panchayat, Nagod, complaining against the allotment of the land to the petitioner, the Tehsildar started proceedings against him under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. 1959. These proceedings were, however, dropped by the Tehsildar on 4th September 1965 holding that the petitioner had not trespassed on the land in question. The Gram panchayat then filed a revision petition on 13th October 1965 before the Tehsildar under Section 85 of the Vindhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Ordinance, 1949, for setting aside the order of allotment by the Nyaya Panchayat on 10th January 1955. The Tehsildar, however, rejected the application of the Gram Panchavat taking the view that it was barred by time. But he formed the opinion that the allotment made by the Nyaya Panchayat in favour of the petitioner was illegal and that it should be set aside by the exercise suo motu of his powers under Section 85 of the Ordinance. Accordingly on 5th February 1966 he set aside the order of the Nyaya Panchayat with regard to the allotment of the land to the petitioner. The petitioner now seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid order of the tehsildar.
(3.) THE main contention advanced before us by Shri Tankha, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that the Tehsildar had no power whatsoever to set aside, even in the suo motu exercise of his revisional powers, the order passed by the Nyaya panchayat on 10th January 1955; and that an order under Section 85 revising or quashing any decree or order passed by the Nyaya Panchayat could be made only within sixty days from the date of the decree or order.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.