STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. POONAM CHAND SHIV RATTAN MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The respondent No. 1 had purchased a piece of malik makbuza land, measuring 0.26 acres, assessed to land revenue at Rs. 0.62, of village Sausar, under a registered sale deed dated 26-10-1928. After the said purchase, the respondent No. 1 constructed a house on the said plot and thus diverted the agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sausar, acting under section 59 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), by his order dated 10th March 1964, revised the assessment of the land and fixed it at Rs. 48.40. The assessment so fixed was to come into effect from the agricultural year 1963-64. That order was set aside by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 16th July 1966 wherein it was held that section 59 (2) of the Code was prospective in operation and the provisions thereof could not be relied on for re-assessment of the land which was diverted to non-agricultural purposes before the Code came into operation. This order is being challenged before us by the State of Madhya Pradesh by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE relevant provisions of section 59 of the Code are as under :

(3.) IT may be mentioned that under section 104-A of the C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1917, and section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, similar provisions were made. When the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, was enacted and the C.P.Land Revenue Act, 1917 was repealed, the operation of the law so repealed was preserved with respect to the liabilities incurred under the repealed Act. Similarly, when the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 was repealed by the present Code (1959 Code), the previous operation of any law so repealed was saved, and any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed enactments was also saved. In this view also, it must be held that proceedings could be initiated against the respondent No. 1 for revision of the land revenue on the ground that the land was diverted to non-agricultural purposes, even when the diversion took place before the present Code came into operation.