SADASHEO RAO ANAND RAO GOVERDHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is an ex -proprietor of village Notinpur, tahsil Mungeli, district Bilaspur. Against item 5, Bab IV of the village Wajib -ul -arz of 1927 -28 there was an entry that the 64 teak trees involved in this case belonged to the Malguzar. This Bab related to the rights in Banjar land (wasteland). While preparing a new Wajib -ul -arz the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms revised this entry and recorded the 64 trees as belonging to Government. The matter went up in appeal to the Board of Revenue which, by its appellate order dated 26 -6 -53 set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, dated 28 -3 -52 on the ground that the procedure prescribed under section 47, Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act was not correctly followed and remanded the case for fresh disposal according to law. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner who dealt with, the case after remand rejected appellant's claim. Hence this appeal.

(2.) A perusal of the record does not clearly indicate as to how the order of the Board was subsequently complied with. It appears that on the report of the patwari dated 25 -12 -54 that the appellant had cut certain trees from the Big Tree Forest (B.T.F.) of the village, entirely new proceedings were started against him. It is not mentioned whether these proceedings were commenced under section 202 of the Land Revenue Act or some other provision of law. No notice appears to have been sent to the appellant although his presence is marked in the order -sheet entry dated 3 -10 -55. A reading of the entire order -sheet does not disclose the subject -matter which was under inquiry of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. The reports of the patwari and the Revenue Inspector also do not furnish any guidance. Presumably this inquiry related to the cutting of the trees from the B. T. F. If so, this was obviously something quite apart from the matter which was remanded by the Board of Revenue for fresh decision according to law. Any way, the case lingered on with snail's speed and on 7 -12 -55 the appellant produced copies of Wajib -ul -arz for the years 1927 -28 and 1943 -44 along with Milan Khasra of 1909 -10 and the case was closed for orders. A reading of the impugned order, on the other hand, shows that after remand from the Board of Revenue a proclamation was issued inviting objections against the proposed revision of the Wajib -ul -arz and the same was published in the village. The exact language used by the lower Court is as follows:

(3.) A proclamation inviting objections was published in the village as usual and facts were ascertained at the time of the in star enquiries. This proclamation is, however, not on record and there is no mention of it in the order -sheet. It is, therefore, difficult to say whether the lower Court referred to some other proclamation issued on a different occasion or that the proclamation, if it pertained to the present case, was otherwise regular and in order. The observations of the lower Court, cited above, are conveniently vague and, in any case, the action taken by it was not at all a proper compliance of the Board's order. In fact, the entire proceedings of the lower Court betray a deplorable degree of carelessness. If the intention was, as it should have been, that the appellant should be noticed to show cause why a particular change or modification may not be made in the village administration paper, a clear proclamation should have been issued so as to offer reasonable opportunity for interested persons to submit their objections, if any, and the fact of such publication should have been clearly recorded in the order -sheet of the case. Failures of this kind to observe the normal procedure present unnecessary and avoidable difficulties at the appellate stage and very often result in the prolongation of litigation to the cost of the litigants. The use of the words ...[VERNACULAR TEXT COMITTED]...indulged in, is meaningless unless it is also stated at the appropriate stage what the...[VERNACULAR TEXT COMITTED]...was and what ...[VERNACULAR TEXT COMITTED]...was done. The record shows that the inquiry related to the cutting of trees while the order passed by the lower Court (as also the heading of the case file) are referable to the correction of the Wajib -ul -arz entries !! The impugned order makes a very confused reading and is exposed to be challenged on grounds such as lack of opportunity, vagueness of the order or the issue on which evidence was called for and the like. I cannot but severely deprecate such un -business -like and non -judicial approach of the revenue officers in the disposal of revenue cases, a tendency which seems to be growing.