Smt. Reeta Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

This order govern the disposal of total six writ appeals. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Writ Appeal No.440/2016.

By this intra Court appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant / State of Madhya Pradesh is challenging order dated 25.07.2016 (Annexure A/3) by which the learned Writ Court quashed show cause notice dated 30.03.2012 (Annexure P/10) issued by appellant No.2 - Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain and allowed the writ petitions.

Facts of the case are that respondent / writ petitioner (s) was the owner of land having Survey No.101 area 3.70 hectare situated at village Jagepur, Tahsil & District Neemuch and the land of the respondent was situated about 25 kilometers away from his residential house.

The appellant No.1 issued a circular on 22.02.1984 (Annexure P/1) for allotment of agriculture land and as per Clause 20 of the aforesaid circular, exchange of land is permissible. Clause 20 of the circular dated 22.02.1984 reads, as under: - "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

The respondent / writ petitioner taking advantage of the circular issued by the State Government i.e. Revenue Book Circular dated 22.02.1984, submitted an application for exchange of land; and a request was made for allotment of the land bearing Survey No.21/3, having an area of 0.728 hectares. The application of the respondent was processed by the appellants and the Collector, Neemuch directed the Tahsildar, Neemuch to submit a report.

On 22.11.2005 (Annexure P/3), the Tahsildar, Neemuch has directed the Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning Department and the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kanawati, Tahsil & District Neemuch to submit their approval for allotment of land in favour of the respondent. A notice was issued by the Tahsildar, Neemuch to Gram Panchayat, Village Jagepur inviting objections of residents of village for allotment of land in favour of the respondent.

The Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Neemuch by letter dated 02.12.2005 (Annexure P/5) has given approval for exchange of land in favour of the respondent. The Tahsildar, Neemuch has also submitted his report for approval in favour of the respondent and a resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat on 09.01.2006 and it was resolved that the Gram Panchayat does not have any objection in the matter.

Thereafter, the matter was processed and finally a report was submitted by the Tahsildar, Neemuch, on the basis of which, an order has been passed on 29.04.2006 (Annexure P/8) by the Collector, Neemuch. The appellant in the year 2006 recorded the name of respondent as Bhumi-Swami in the revenue record and since then, he is continuing as Bhumi-Swami.

On 30.03.2012 (Annexure P/10), a show cause notice was issued by appellant No.2 / Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain for review of the order passed by the Collector, Neemuch on 29.04.2006. The respondent preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision on the ground that there is no remedy of revision under the Revenue Book Circular before the Board of Revenue.

In the earlier round of litigation, the learned Writ Court in an identical case passed the following order: - "This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P.Nos.9553/12, 9554/12, 9555/2012, 9557/2012 and also 9224/2012 as question involved in all the petitions are identical in nature and also the parties are one and same except the petitioner.

In W.P.No.9556/2012, the prayer is that entire proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 by notice dated 30/3/2012 under suo motu powers and order dated 25/9/2012 passed by the respondent No.1 be quashed.

Short facts of the case are that petition in all the petitions moved application for exchange of land as per circular dated 22/2/84 wherein it was prayed that another land be given to the petitioner in exchange. The applications filed by the petitioner were allowed and land was given in exchange to each of the petitioner and land which was owned by the petitioner was taken over. Full particulars of each of the case are shown in the following chart:-

S. N.

Petition No.

Survey No.,Area & village of the land given

Survey No.,Area & village of the land received in exchange

Date of Application to DM fro exchange

Date of order for Exchange

Date of suo motu action

Value of the land given as per Govt. guideline on the date of Exchange

Value of the received land as per Govt./ guideline on the date of Exchange

1 9553/12 Sudesh Kilewale Survey No.1, 7.60 Hect., Jagepur Village

Survey No.18, Survey No.19, 1.270 Hct., village Kanwati

21-11-2005 2-4-2006 30-3-2012 12,92,000/- 12,67,800/-

2 9554/12 Kamal Kumar Jain 891 & 992, 0.90 village Girdoda, 172, 0.41 hect. Village Arlia Total 1.31 hect. 562 & 564, 1.082 hect., Village Kanawati

16-11-2005 24-5-2006 30-3-2012 8,92,650/- 8,92,650/-

3 9555/12 Manoj Garg Survey No.2429, 0.418 hect., Neemuch city

Survey No.564, 0.418 hect., Village Kanawati

3-2-2005 24-8-2005 30-3-2012 2,04,000/- 1,96,878/-

4 9556/12 Sarita Devi Survey No.549, 1.23 Hect., Village Bisalwas Kalan

Survey No.9 & 12, 12, 1.212 Hect., Village Kanawati

31-4-2006 20-12-06 30-3-2012 5,93,880/- 5,93,880/-

5 9557/12 Bharti Parashar 665/2, 0.523 Hect. Village Kanawati

665/1, 0.523 Hect., Village Kanawati

31-5-2006 19-2-2007 30-3-2012 3,27,398/- 2,56,270/-

6 9224/12 Sharad Gagrani Survey No.1, 3.70 Hect., Village Jagepur

21/3, 0.3628 hect., village Kanawati

21-11-2005 29-4-2006 30-3-2012 6,29,000/- 6,00,600/-

Thereafter on 30/3/2012 show cause notice was issued by respondent No.2 in exercise of power conferred by section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, against which revision was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on the ground that since the order passed by Collector is as per the circular of R.B.C. (Revenue Book Circular), the order is not maintainable, hence this petition.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned notice dated 30/3/2012 issued by the respondent No.2 is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that land was allotted to each of the petitioner in exchange long back. In compliance of that, name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record, thereafter, permission was also obtained from the Town and Country Planning and also from the Municipal Corporation and houses have been constructed ant at such a belated stage, notices have been issued in exercise of suo motu powers while limitation for exercising the suo motu power is 180 days. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Ranveer Singh through L.Rs. Kishori Singh, 2010 (4) MPLJ 178 whereby it was held that ''In order to exercise suo motu power of revision envisaged under section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and looking to the scheme of Chapter V, it should be exercised by the revisional authority within 180 days from the date of knowledge of the illegality or improprietry of any order passed or as to the irregularity of the proceedings of any revenue officer subordinate to it and it will not be justifiable to stretch it for any length of period even for protection of the Goivernment land or public interest.'' Learned counsel further submits that as per the order dated 24/5/2012 passed by respondent No.1, no revision is maintainable as order dated 24/5/2006 is passed under the R.B. Circulars, therefore how the powers under section 50 can be exercised. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition be allowed and notice dated 30/3/2012 be quashed.

Learned counsel for respondents supports the order and submits that petition has no merits and same be dismissed.

From perusal of record, it appears that it is only the notice which has been received by the petitioner. If the petition is of the view that notices itself are time barred and no steps

can be taken in exercising the suo motu powers, then, the petitioner is at liberty to file the objections filed the authority who has issued the notice wherein petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the grounds which shall be decided by the competent authority by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Till then, parties are directed to maintain status quo. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. Copy of the order be kept in the record of all the connected cases."

A Division Bench of this Court in a writ appeal preferred by the respondent as well as by other persons, has remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge on a limited issue. The order passed by the Division Bench on 20.12.2013 in Writ Appeal No.1165/2013 reads, as under:- "The appellant''s grievance is that though, reliance was placed by the appellant on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh Vs. State of MP reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 178. The same though has been referred but has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and the matter has been remitted back to the authority for consideration about the said objection that the proceedings itself were not maintainable being barred by limitation.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

We are of the view that the question which has been raised in the writ petition, ought to have been decided by the learned Single Judge instead of relegating the petitioner to the authority, which had issued the impugned notice. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter back to the writ Court for deciding the case on the question raised in the writ petition.

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The interim protection granted by the writ Court shall continue till the matter is decided by the writ Court."

In the case of Ranveer Singh v. State of MP reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 178, Full Bench of this Court has held that in order to exercise suo motu power of revision envisaged under Section 50 of the Code and looking to the scheme of Chapter V, it should be exercised by the Revision-

al Authority within 180 days from the date of the knowledge of the illegality or impropriety of any order passed or as to the irregularity of the proceedings of any Revenue Officer subordinate to it and it will not be justifiable to stretch it for any length of period even for protection of the Government land.

The third Judge has expressed his opinion also in paragraph No.52 and the same reads as under:- "52. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I concur with Brother Shrivastava, J., that what should be an irreparable loss is to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case because as no definite yardstick in that regard can be applied. I further concur with him in the manner that in such cases a period of 180 days from the date of detection of illegality, impropriety and/or irregularity of the order/proceedings committed by Revenue Authority subordinate to Revisional Authority would be a reasonable period for exercise of suo motu powers despite involvement of Government land or pubic interest. I may further hasten to add that this would be upper-ceiling of limitation for exercise of such powers and the person suffering an irreparable loss would be within his rights to show that such power ought to have been exercised in lesser period in view of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, causing irreparable loss prior to such exercise.

However, when a person against whom suo motu exercise of power is being made is not put to an irreparable loss, period of one year from the date of detection of illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order/proceedings would be a reasonable period for exercise of suo motu powers of revision under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code for protection of the Government land or public interest."

The stand of the appellant / State of Madhya Pradesh before the learned Writ Court was that suo motu revision is provided under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (herein after referred to as the Code). The Additional Commissioner, Ujjain no sooner came to know about the order dated 29.04.2006, had issued show cause notice within a reasonable time.

It is also submitted that Section 50 of the Code conferred power to the Authority to revise any order of subordinate Revenue Officer. This provision is totally an independent provision enabling the Revisional Authority to exercise suo motu powers in reasonable cases and within reasonable time. The respondent / landowner is having an opportunity to file reply to the show cause notice, and therefore, they must file their reply to the show cause notice, and thereafter, the learned Authority will decide the matter, in accordance with law. The revisional power can be exercised within a reasonable time and that is the meaning to be attributed to the term "at any time" used therein. It is not the case of the appellant / State of MP that the learned Authority was not having jurisdiction to issue show cause notice, and therefore, the writ petition filed by the respondent directly against the show cause notice is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Learned Writ Court relying on the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Ranveer Singh v. State of MP (supra) came to the conclusion that in general matters, the period of limitation should be 180 days and in respect of the matter of other public interest like involvement of government land, the upper ceiling limit should be one year. There was a dispute in respect of date of knowledge of the order.

In paragraph No.2 of the show cause notice, some enquiry was conducted and report was submitted by the Collector on 03.12.2011. The Additional Commissioner, after going through the report had taken a decision to issue show cause notice in exercise of power of suo motu and referred the matter for registering review petition. After registration, show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 30.03.2012. The learned Writ Court, considering the fact that the land has been allotted to the farmers in the year 2006 and after about six years, show cause notice has been issued and even if the contents of the show cause notice are taken into account, the show cause notice has been issued after expiry of 180 days from the date of knowledge. It is also observed that at the time of allotment of land through exchange on 29.04.2006, the value of the land was Rs.6,29,000/- and as per the Collector''s guideline, it was Rs.6,29,000/-; meaning thereby, there is a difference of approximately Rs.28,400/-. The rate was calculated on the basis of 2006 guideline issued by the Collector, whereas in the show cause notice in order to make it a very expensive land, the rate has been calculated on the basis of guideline issued in the year 2011, and therefore, relying on the Full Bench decision in the case of Ranveer Singh v. State of MP (supra), the show cause notice issued by the Additional Commissioner dated 30.03.2012 was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

It is this order, which is impugned in the present bunch of writ appeals.

Learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant / State has submitted that show cause notice dated 30.03.2012 was issued on the basis of report of the Collector

dated 03.12.2011, and therefore, the same was in time i.e. issued within 180 days as per Full Bench decision in the case of Ranveer Singh v. State of MP (supra). The learned Writ Court has committed an error in holding that the show cause notice was issued after 180 days. It is also submitted that the land of the original respondent was agriculture land, whereas the land which was allotted to the respondent in exchange i.e. the Government land was residential, as per letter of the Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Neemuch. The value of the exchanged land was more than Rs.50,000/- and, therefore, the same cannot be exchanged prior to sanction of the Finance Department. It is also submitted that the exchange was made contrary to Clause 20 of the Revenue Book Circular.

Per contra, Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to application (IA No.7064/2016) for bringing additional documents on record and submitted that he has received these documents under Right to Information Act, 2005 to show that no loss accrued to the State Exchequer, when appellant No.3 passed order on 29.04.2006. The appellant No.2 was aware of the order passed by appellant No.3, allowing the application for transfer of land, right from 12.06.2008 and continuous communications have been made between the appellants regarding the said matter. He has placed copy of those letters dated

03.2007, 09.04.2007, 12.06.2008, 23.06.2009, 08.08.2008, 12.08.2009, 27.08.2009, 03.09.2009. Relevant part of letter dated 12.06.2008 issued by the Govern-

ment of Madhya Pradesh to the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, reads, as under: - "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

He further submitted that prior to issuance of show cause notice, a complaint was filed by one Vilas Chandra Patidar. In Vidhan Sabha also, the issue in question was raised vide Question No.5196. On 13.03.2007, reply was filed. These documents show that the appellants have knowledge about exchange order dated 29.04.2006 much prior to the date of issuance of the show cause notice. It is submitted that the show cause notice was issued after a period of more than one year from the date of knowledge of the Revenue Officer and the learned Writ Court has rightly quashed the same; and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeals.

Relevant letter dated 03.10.2011 of the Office of Collector, Neemuch and 03.12.2011 of the Office of Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, read, as under: - "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

From the aforesaid, so also the letter filed by the respondent along with the application, the appellants had knowledge about passing of the order dated 29.04.2006, much prior to the date 03.12.2011 and 03.12.2011 and written complaint filed by one Vilas Patidar in the year 2007 and in Vidhan Sabha also Question No.5196 was raised and a detailed report and reply to the written complaint was submitted by the Collector, Neemuch to the Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh and thus, it cannot be said that for the first time, appellant No.2 - Additional Commissioner, Ujjain

Divison, Ujjain came to know about order dated 29.04.2006 in the year 2011.

The expression "at any time qualifies exercise of power on its / his own motion on the application made by any party" is settled. The application was made by the complainant Vilas Chandra Patidar much prior to 2007. Thereafter, the Collector prepared a detailed report and submitted it before the State Government in reply to the query of Vidhan Sabha question. Thus, it cannot be said that the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain within a reasonable time, exercised his powers. The proceedings were initiated in the year 2011 on the basis of Collector''s letter dated 03.11.2011 and Commissioner''s letter dated 03.12.2011, whereas they had knowledge about the order of exchange passed on 29.04.2006. Show cause notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain in the year 2012 only i.e. 30.03.2012 (Annexure P/10) in exercise of powers under Section 50 of the Code. Thus, it cannot be said that the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain exercised its powers as prescribed under Section 50 of the Code, within reasonable time.

Suo motu exercise of powers of revision with regard to limitation is well settled. The Additional Commissioner should not exercise powers after lapse of six years from the date of order, especially where no irregularity was found in the exchange of land. The Additional Commissioner, issued show cause notice on the basis of 2011 RBC whereas at the time of exchange 2006 RBC was available and on the basis of the provisions of 2006 RBC the order of ex-

change was passed. In the show cause notice, the Additional Commissioner has taken market value of 201-12, whereas in 2006, when the exchange order was passed, the market value was same, as fixed by the Collector. Exercise of powers, after six years is belated. Such powers should not be exercised without explanation for delay, nor it can be said that the same was exercised within a reasonable time. Exercise of such powers after so many years is a colourable exercise of powers.

In view of Full Bench decision in the case of Ranveer Singh v. State of MP (supra), such powers must be exercised within 180 days from the date of knowledge of illegality, impropriety or irregularity exercised by subordinate officer while passing the order of exchange in favour of the respondent. It is settled law by the Apex Court in Full Bench decision in the case of Ranveer Singh v. State of MP (supra), that such powers could be exercised within a reasonable time and not after lapse of several years.

For the above mentioned reasons, we are of the view that the appellant / State has the knowledge about order dated 29.04.2006 passed by the Collector, Neemuch since 2007-08. The Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, after lapse of six years from the date of knowledge of the order dated 29.04.2006 exercised its suo motu powers not within a reasonable time. The order dated 25.07.2016 passed by the learned Writ Court is just and proper. No case to interfere with the aforesaid well reasoned order, as prayed

for by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant / State, is made out.

Writ Appeal No.439/2016, Writ Appeal No.440/2016, Writ Appeal No.441/2016, Writ Appeal No.442/2016, Writ Appeal No.443/2016, Writ Appeal No.444/2016 have no merit and are accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

The original order be retained in the record of Writ Appeal No.440/2016 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of other connected five writ appeals.