Subba Rao, J. - (1.) These two appeals by special leave are filed against the common judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur in writ petitions Nos. 22 of 1955 and 274 of 1955 filed by respondents 1, 3 to 6 herein in the said Court.
(2.) The facts in Appeal No. 370 of 1960 may be stated first. Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani, was the proprietor and lambardar of Mouza Sonpairi in Tehsil and District Raipur. On January 14, 1947, he executed perpetual pastas in favour of his wife, Yashodabai, since deceased, and respondents 4, 5 and 6 in respect of khudkasht and grass lands of Mouza Sonpairi. In Tabdili Jamabandi of the year 1941347 the said lands were recorded as the Occupancy Tenancy Holdings of the said respondent 4 to 6 and respondent 2, Govindlal Nathani, the legal representative of Yashodabai. The same entry was found in the Jamabandis of the subsequent years. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, l950 (1 of 1951), hereinafter called the Act, came into force on January 22, 1951. Thereafter in due course the estate of the said proprietor was duly notified under S. 3 of the Act. On March 25, 1952, the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, acting under S. 40 of the Act, recognised the said Balkishan Nathani as the pattadar and settled the assessment payable by him in respect of Khasra Nos. 289/2 and 366/7 of Mouza Sonpairi. No appeal was preferred against that order. Thereafter, appellant 2, the Nistar Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Raipur, started proceedings against the respondents for the correction of old annual papers in Mouza Sonpairi with a view to reopen the earlier order made under S. 40 of the Act, as the earlier order was passed on the basis of the entries found in Tabdili Jamabandi of the year 1946-47 and subsequent years. Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani, raised an objection that appellant 2 had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings. Appellant 2 overruled the objection and made the following order: "On the next hearing, 5 witnesses may be produced for proving cultivation. The names of the purchasers, to whom the lands have been sold, be obtained from the Patwari and a notice he served on them that they should file their statements as well as should bring the sale-deeds along with them. Hearing fixed for date 4-8-1954. The non-applicants may file other evidence which they wish to file." It will be seen from the said order that the second appellant purported to make an inquiry in regard to the factum of cultivation as well as the validity of the sale-deeds whereunder respondent I created interests in the other respondents. Respondent 1 preferred an appeal from that order to the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, but the same was dismissed on the ground that it was premature. Thereupon, the respondents filed the writ petition No. 22 of 1955 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
(3.) Civil Appeal No. 371 of 1960 relates to Patti No. 1 of Mouza Kachna in Tehsil and District Raipur. Respondent 1 was the Proprietor and Lambardar of the said Mouza. On February 19, 1948, the said Seth Balkishan Nathani executed perpetual pastas in respect of the said lands in favour of the same respondents as in the other appeal. In the annual papers the said lands were recorded as the Occupancy Tenancy Holdings of respondents 2 to 6. On December 8, 1954, appellant 2 made an inspection of the said lands and made the following order on December 9, 1954: "********** 2. There were found to be obvious mistakes in Government documents Khasra, Jamabandi and Tabdilat, Mistakes discharged (discovered) by me in Patwari papers have been corrected. 3. Ex-proprietors (I) Balkishan Nathani and others and (2) Narayanrao made absolutely bogus transfers in favour of their family members, namely (i) (a) Kamlabai, (b) Pana Bai, (c) Yashodabai, (d) Chhote Bai of Nathani family. (ii) Kamla Bai Chitnavis, wife of Narayanrao, ax-proprietor. Patwari entered names without cultivation and agricultural possession against Land Record Manual. Volume 1. 4. Mistakes found in patwari records have been corrected by me after spot inspection. These papers be now filed." It will be seen from the said order that the second appellant found that the transfers made by respondent l in favour of the other respondents were bogus and that he also corrected the entries in the annual papers to the effect that the landlord was not cultivating the lands as recorded in the earlier papers. The respondents filed writ petition No 274 of 1905 in the High Court to quash the said order. A Full Bench of the High Court held that neither S. 15 (3) of the Act nor S. 47 (1) of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 (C. P. Act No. [I of 1917), hereinafter called the Land Revenue Act, conferred a power on the Nistar Officer to review orders already made in respect of the factum of cultivation or the occupancy rights recognized under the relevant provisions of the said Acts. In the result, it allowed the two writ petitions quashing the proceedings started by the Nistar Officer in the case of Mouza Sonpairi and the order, dated December 9, 1954, passed by him in the case of Mouza Kachna and prohibiting him from taking further proceedings which may affect the occupancy tenancy rights of the petitioners in the lands in dispute. Hence the two appeals. ;