KALE KHAN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE M P
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BOARD OF REVENUE, M.P
Click here to view full judgement.
Raina J -
(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioner holds certain lands in village Chak Mahu in Tahsil Sironj and in villages Perwasa and Mahmuda of Tehsil Basoda in Vidisha District. On receipt of a notice under section 10 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the petitioner filed an application for permission to sell certain lands before the Collector, Vidisha. THE permission was refused vide order dated 29-9-1966. THE petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal, which was also dismissed. THE petitioner, thereupon, filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') which was rejected on the ground that no revision lies vide Annexure 'A' to the petition.
The petitioner filed a return in pursuance of the notice of the Collector who was competent authority in this case. According to this return the petitioner held 154 Bighas, 10 Biswas of land in Chak Mahu, 77 Bighas, 7 Biswas in village Perwasa and no land in village Mahmuda. The competent authority, however, held that the petitioner holds 297 Bighas, 19 Biswas of land, that is 117.77 acres, and making an allowance for the petitioner and his dependents, 65.66 acres were declared surplus. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner. The petitioner then went up in revision against the appellate order but his revision petition was rejected by the Board on the ground that it was not maintainable as no revision lies against an appellate order under the Act (vide Annexure 'A'). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has filed this petition praying that the impugned order of the Board may be set aside and an appropriate writ be issued to the Board to hear the revision petitions on merits.
No returns have been filed on behalf of the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 i.e. the Board and the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal. The non-petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, namely, the Collector Vidisha, and the State of M.P.have filed a return in which it has been contended that the revision petitions were rightly dismissed as no revision lies against the said orders. It was also urged that the petitioner ought to have filed two separate petitions as the impugned order (Annexure 'A') deals with two separate revisions against two distinct orders.
(3.) WE are unable to accept the contention of the non-petitioners that the petitioner could not challenge the impugned order as a whole which disposed of two separate revision petilions particularly because both the petitions arise out of the proceedings under the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, against the petitioner and they were disposed of by a common order and the questions of law involved are almost identical.
As for the merits of the petition it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the orders which the petitioner sought to challenge before the Board. The only point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the revision petitions filed by the petitioner before the Board were maintainable. The Board held that they were not maintainable in view of its decision in Satya Narayan v. Slate of M. P.(1968 RN 554) in which the earlier decision of the Board in shiv Govind v.State of M.P.(1968 RN 400) was relied upon. In the aforesaid decision it has been laid down by the Board as under :-
(i) An appeal or revision against an order of the Competent Authority under the Act lies to the Collector or the Commissioner as the persona designata and not the Court concerned; (ii) The intention of the Legislature to exclude the operation of section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') from a case under the Ceiling Act, and from the language of sections 41 and 42 of the Act it is clear that the Legislature did not intend to provide revision against an order passed in appeal or revision in order to shorten the litigation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.