Hot Chand @ Hemant Kumar vs Anil Kumar and Another

S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dt. 5.2.2013 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner challenged part of the order.

The petitioner submitted an application before the Tahsildar for demarcation of his land of Survey No. 18/1, 18/2 and 19/1 min total area 3.543 hectares situate at village Naugaon, Tahsil and District Gwalior. Case No. 48/1994-95/A-12 was registered by Tahsildar. Thereafter, the land was demarcated by the Superintendent of Land Records. Tahsildar confirmed the demarcation after observing that no objection was filed before the authority. Thereafter, after a period of two years, respondent No. 1 submitted objection against demarcation. He pleaded that there was some scoring in the field book and the distance was not mentioned properly.

Tahsildar observed that there was some scoring in the field book, hence, the case be taken in review. Consequently, he requested the SDO on 13.6.1997 to grant permission for review. On the same date, SDO granted permission of review and thereafter Tahsildar accepted the same and ordered the SLR to pass an order.

The petitioner came to know about the fact of review on 27.1.2011 because he had not been noticed by Tahsildar and SDO before passing the order. Then he filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner. Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner after holding that revision was barred by limitation. Against the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred another revision before the Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue set aside the orders passed by the SDO and Additional Commissioner. Board of Revenue further set aside the order of demarcation passed by Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Board of Revenue has committed an error in setting aside the order of demarcation passed by Tahsildar and also committed an error in remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar.

Contrary to this, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 contended that there was illegality in demarcation, hence, the authority-Board of Revenue has rightly passed the order in regard to setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar.

Undisputedly, in the present petition, Tahsildar accepted the demarcation of the land of the petitioner, thereafter he sought permission of review, that was granted and thereafter the order of review was passed and the order of demarcation was set aside.

Section 51(1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code of 1959'') prescribes review of orders. The relevant provision is as under:-

Review of orders.-(1) The Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its/his own motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed by itself/himself or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit; Provided that -

(i) if the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Collector or Settlement Officer thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Board, and if an officer subordinate to a Collector or Settlement Officer proposes to review any order, whether passed by himself or by any predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in writing of the authority to whom he is immediately subordinate;

(i-a) no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order;

From the perusal of Section 51(1)(i-a) of the Code of 1959, it is clear that no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties and without hearing the parties. In the present case, earlier order of demarcation was in favour of the petitioner, hence, it was obligatory on the part of the authority - SDO and Tahsildar to give a notice to the petitioner before passing the order in review. No such notice was given. Hence, the order was against the statutory provisions of Section 51(1)(i-a) of the Code of 1959. Hence, it has rightly been quashed by the Board of Revenue.

The Additional Commissioner committed an error in dismissing the revision as time barred because when no notice was issued to the petitioner, then certainly the petitioner has no information about the order. Hence, the aforesaid order has rightly been cancelled by the Board of Revenue.

The Board of Revenue has also cancelled the order passed by the Tahsildar of demarcation. The petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. In such circumstances, Board of Revenue could not have cancelled the order, which was not challenged before it. It is contrary to the provisions of Code of 1959. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue upto the extent of quashing of order of demarcation passed by Tahsildar, which was passed in favour of the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.