Siddharth Dev Singh vs State Of Madhya pradesh And Others

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 14/11/2017, 24/11/2017 and 01/12/2017 passed by respondents No.1 and

2.

Respondent No.2 has issued a notice on 09/06/2017 for auction of certain lands for agricultural purposes for Agriculture Year 2017-18. Notice

dated 09/06/2017 included the land which is subject matter of this petition. Â The land which is in question in this petition is the land bearing Khasra

No.18, 19/1/, 21/1, 21/2, 29/2Ka, 23, 24, 25, 26, total area 21.98 acre situated in Village Ramna, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, Circle Raigaon, Distt. Satna. As

per the auction notice dated 09/06/2017, the auction was scheduled to be held on 11/06/2017. The petitioner participated in the auction proceedings

held on 11/06/2017 and made a bid of Rs.32,500/-. Â The petitioner bid being highest was accepted and the bid was turned down in his favour. As

nobody made bid more than that of the bid of petitioner, the auction of the land for a period of one year from June, 2017 to June, 2018 (farming year)

was closed in favour of the petitioner and, accordingly, Panchnama was prepared.

The petitioner after being successful in the auction and pursuant to the auction proceedings took the possession of the land in question and he

started farming on the lands. Â In June, 2017 the petitioner cultivated Soyabeen, Urad, Til, Arhar, on the said lands. Soyabean, Til and Urad were

reaped and Arhar crops are still standing on the fields. After this, in the month of October-November, 2017, the petitioner has cultivated Wheat,

Chickpeas (Chana) and the crop is still standing on the fields. On 18/06/2017 Patwari prepared a report and submitted before respondent No.2 that the

land is auctioned in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has requested time to deposit the auction amount. The petitioner on 03/10/2017 paid

Rs.7500/- and on 27/09/2017 paid Rs.25,000/- total Rs.32,500/- in the treasury as full and final amount of auction. Â In the meanwhile on 06/11/2017

respondent No.3 filed an application before respondent No.1, Tahsildar, Circle Raigaon, Tahsil Raghurajnagar for cancellation of auction proceedings

culminated in favour of the petitioner. On the application of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 referred the matter to the SDO, Raghurajnagar seeking

permission to review the auction proceedings vide order dated 14/11/2017 under Section 51 of the MPLRC. It is submitted that even at this stage

when the matter was referred to the SDO seeking permission to review auction proceedings which the petitioner has succeeded, no notice was issued

to the petitioner and in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and in most mechanical, arbitrary and predetermined manner, the permission

was granted vide order dated 24/11/2017 by respondent No.1. On 01/12/2017 without issuing any notice/show cause notice to the petitioner and in

clear violation of Section 51 of MPLRC, straightway impugned order was passed whereby respondent No.1 cancelled the auction made in favour of

the petitioner.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the cancellation of the auction is totally against the principles of natural

justice and dehorse the provisions of Section 51 of MPLRC. Section 51 of MPLRC provides that any Revenue Officer can review his decision suo-

moto or on application of any party interested. Â To substantiate the aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon the

judgment passed by the Indore Bench of this Court in the case of Shaheed Anwar Vs. Board of Revenue and another, reported in 2000 R.N. 76 in

which it has been held that the sanction for review by board or any other Revenue Officer cannot be granted without notice and hearing the other

side. It is further argued by learned senior counsel that Tahsildar erred in entertaining the complaint because it was barred by limitation as provided

under Section 51(1)(iii) of the MPLRC which specifically provides that no order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be

reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made

within sixty days from passing of the order. Â It is also argued that the application was not made within sixty days as provided under Section 51(1)(iii)

of MPLRC and, therefore, could not have entertained. Â The auction proceedings were conducted on 11/06/2017 and the auction proceedings were

closed vide order dated 23/08/2017 and from 23/08/2017 the limitation was only upto 22/10/2017 but the application was filed on 06/11/2017, therefore,

it was hit by limitation and this section also does not provide for any provision for condonation of delay in submitting such application, thus, it was

totally a fallacy of Tahsildar to entertain such application.

Respondents No.1 and 2 have not filed any reply in spite of granting last opportunity to them to file reply on 03/04/2018 but they did not choose to

file any reply, therefore, their right was closed.

Respondent No.3 has filed reply and in the reply, respondent No.3 has stated that Civil Judge Class-I, Satna in Execution Case No.6-B/1979

conducted auction sale of an agricultural land bearing Khasra No.18, 19, 21, 29, 25 and 26, total area 21.98 acres and in such auction sale, respondent

No.3 was the highest bidder and, therefore, the sale was affirmed in his name on 26/08/1983. Â On 14/11/1983, respondent No.3 had submitted an

application for grant of possession of the aforesaid property. On 17/01/1984, possession of the aforesaid land was delivered by Civil Judge Class-I,

Satna to respondent No.3. Upon delivery of possession, execution proceedings were closed vide order dated 20/02/1984. Thereafter one Geeta Singh,

Udaibhan Singh and Ajmat Ali had made a complaint on 08/07/1987 to Superintendent of Police, Satna. On such complaint, case was registered by

Superintendent of Police, Satna under Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. After conducting enquiry, a report was submitted before the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Satna on 11/07/1987 and a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. was passed. Â In such proceedings on 25/03/1988

possession of the aforesaid land was obtained from respondent No.3 and was delivered to the Naib Tahsildar in Supradnama and the said matter

remained pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Satna. However, the said land was given on auction for cultivation every year.

On 18/08/2017 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Satna has passed final order in the proceeding and gave a finding that respondent No.3 is in

possession of the land in question after having purchased the same in an auction proceeding conducted by the Civil Court. Â On 18/08/2017 Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Satna has issued release order in respect of the aforesaid land. Â Thereafter possession of the land was delivered to respondent

No.3 on 21/08/2017. Smt. Geeta Singh and two others have filed Criminal Revision No.82/2017 in the Court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna

against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and also filed an application for stay of order dated 18/08/2017. The said application has

been dismissed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Satna on the ground that possession of the land in question has already been delivered to respondent

No.3 on 21/08/2017. Â The petitioner has participated in all proceedings and he was fully aware that the possession of the land has been delivered to

respondent No.3 by Tahsildar and all these facts have been suppressed by the petitioner in the present writ petition, therefore, the present writ petition

deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. He further submits that the petitioner has not deposited the auction amount

within a period of seven days as directed by the Patwari. He further submits that merely participating in the auction proceeding, the petitioner would

not acquire any legal right for delivery of possession of the land in question. Â As the possession of the land has already been delivered to respondent

No.3, therefore, there was no occasion for the Tahsildar for putting the land in auction. Respondent No.3, therefore, submitted an application on

6/11/2017 for cancellation of auction sale held on 11/06/2017. He further denies that the petitioner has cultivated the land in question.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the possession of the land has already given to respondent No.3 in execution proceeding

conducted by the Civil Court and thereafter in the proceeding taken under Sections 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C., therefore, there was no question for

auctioning the disputed land. Against the said auction respondent No.3 has made a complaint to the Tahsildar and on the basis of the said complaint,

Tahsildar has exercised the powers of suo moto review and cnacelled the auction held in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that so far as

applicability of Section 51 of the MPLRC is concerned, the said provision would not be applicable in the present case because, the possession has

been given to the petitioner in pursuance of the proceeding taken under Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. In light of the aforesaid, he submits that the

present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the present case, respondent No.2 issued a notice on 09/06/2017 for auction of certain lands for agricultural purposes for the year 2017-18. The

said notice also included the land which is subject matter of this petition. The petitioner has participated in the auction proceeding held on 11/06/2017

and made a bid of Rs.32,500/-. The bid of the petitioner being highest was accepted by the respondents. Thereafter a Panchnama was prepared and

possession of the land was given to the petitioner. In the year 2017 the petitioner has cultivated the said land in the month of June as well as

November. The petitioner thereafter paid full and final amount of auction. Respondent No.3, in the meanwhile, filed an application before respondent

No.1 on 06/11/2017 for cancellation of auction proceeding culminated in favour of the petitioner. The said application was referred by respondent

No.2 to the SDO for seeking permission to review the auction proceeding vide order dated 14/11/2017 under Section 51 of the M.P.L.R.C. The

permission was granted vide order dated 24/11/2017 and on 01/12/2017 respondent No.1 has passed an order thereby cancelling the auction made in

favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Section 51 of the MPLRC provides for review of the order. As per sub-section (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. Â Proviso (i-a) provides that 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. As per this section, the

Board or every Revenue Officer has power of suo moto review the order. However, as per the proviso (i-a), the order shall not be varied or reversed

unless notice has been served on the interested party. Â In the present case, from the order passed by the SDO, it reveals that no notice or

opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Even prior to seeking permission to review the auction

proceeding, no notice has been given to the petitioner.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shaheed Anwar (supra) in para-5 and 6 has held as under :

“5. We find some substance in the plea. Even if it was assumed that the power of review was available in the given case still appellant deserves to

be put on notice and afforded an opportunity of being heard. Â Because no order affecting his interest and reopening the exchange deal concluded

years back could be passed at his back and without affording him opportunity of being heard. Moreover it would be innocuous to provide him such

opportunity in the given facts and circumstances of the case which would cause prejudice to none, least of all to the interests of the State.

This appeal is accordingly allowed and writ Court order dated 07/10/98 passed in W.P. No.920/98 is quashed. W.P. No.926/98 shall revive.â€​

As per this section, sanction for review by Board or any other Revenue Officer cannot be granted without notice and hearing the other side.

In the present case, even before taking prior sanction from the higher authority, respondent No.2 has not issued any notice to the petitioner which

is contrary to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shaheed Anwar (supra). Thus, while exercising the powers

under Section 51 of MPLRC, the authorities are required to issue notice or give opportunity of hearing to the person concerned i.e. at the time of

obtaining the sanction for exercising the power of review before passing an order of review.

Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Govind and others Vs. Settlement Commissioner, M.P. and others, reported in 1980

R.N.534, in para-6 has held as under :

“6. Before proceeding to examine the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the

Code, Chapter XVI of the Code deals with consolidation of holdings. When the scheme of consolidation is submitted to the Collector by the

consolidation officer under the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 209 of the Code, the Collector is empowered under Section 210 of the Code to

confirm the scheme with or without modification or to refuse to confirm it after considering the objections to the scheme. That section further provides

that the decision of the Collector, subject to any order that may be passed in revision by the Settlement Commissioner under Section 50, shall be final.

Section 51 of the Code deals with review of orders. The relevant provisions are contained in sub-section (1) and (2) of section 51, which reads 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 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;

(ii) No order from which an appeal has been made, or which is the subject of any revision proceedings shall, so long as such appeal or proceedings are

pending, be reviewed; (iii) No order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to

the proceeding, and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within ninety days from the passing of the order.

No order shall be reviewed except on the ground provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1906 (V of 1908). Now, in the instant case, it was not

contended on behalf of the petitioners that the finality attained by the order of confirmation passed by the Collector under Section 210 of the Code was

not subject to any review. Assuming, therefore, that the Collector had the power to review the order of confirmation, there can be no manner of doubt

that that power could be exercised by the Collector only in accordance with the provisions of Section 51 of the Code. In the instant case, the Collector

is not shown to have passed any order of review disclosing the reasons for reviewing the earlier order. It is, therefore, not possible to ascertain as to

whether the decision to review the earlier order of confirmation was founded on grounds specified in O.47 RI, CPC, as provided by sub-section (2) of

section 51 of the Code. Further, no notice was admittedly given to the petitioners before the earlier order of confirmation passed by the Collector on

22nd October 1969 was sought to be varied. The petitioners were affected by the review of that order and were undoubtedly interested in supporting

that order. In these circumstances, the decision taken by the Collector to review the earlier order, without giving notice to the petitioners, contravened

the provisions of Section 51 (i-a) of the Code and the principles of natural justice. Â It was urged that before sanctioning the fresh scheme on 31st

December 1976 the petitioners were heard, but that hearing was with regard to the objections to the fresh scheme proposed to be sanctioned. Â It

was not a hearing for the purpose of deciding as to whether the earlier order of confirmation dated 22nd October, 1969 could or could not be reviewed

in accordance with law, under the circumstances, the order of confirmation of the fresh scheme passed by the Collector on 31st December 1976 and

the order dated 13th April, 1978 passed by the Settlement Commissioner dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be

quashed. Â As regards the contention put forward on behalf of the Wakf Board that the earlier scheme confirmed on 2nd October, 1969, was itself

contrary to the provisions of the Wakf Act, it is not necessary to express any opinion on that question because we are not called upon in this petition to

decide about the validity of the earlier scheme. As regards alternative remedy said to be available to the petitioner, the contention cannot be upheld.

No order of review has been shown to have been passed in the question of preferring any appeal against that order did not therefore arise, assuming

that an appeal could have been preferred.â€​

Thus, in light of aforesaid provisions, respondents No.1 and 2 ought to give opportunity of hearing before cancelling earlier auction proceeding. The

contention of learned counsel for respondent No.3 is that the possession of the disputed land was handed over to respondent No.3 in pursuance to the

proceeding initiated under Section 145 and 146 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the provisions of MPLRC would not be attracted in the present case is not

accepted because under the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no power of review, therefore, respondents No.1 and 2 can exercise powers of suo

moto under the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Thus, while exercising the power under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, respondents No.1 and 2 would be

bound to comply with the provisions under Section 51 of the MPLRC.

In light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 14/11/2017, 24/11/2017 and 01/12/2017 passed by

respondents No.1 and 2 are hereby set aside.