Asha Kothari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 06/02/2018 passed by the Board of Revenue in

revision rejecting the prayer to remand the matter to the Collector as requested in the revision and looking to the report of the Settlement Officer it is

directed that the proceedings before the Collector shall be treated to be closed.

In the present case, the facts which are not in dispute is that out of the total land of 4.50 acre of Khasra No.1/3, 1 acre was sold to the petitioner in

the year 1985. At page No.81, the map of Revenue Aks of the year 1982-83 was filed showing the entire piece of land 4.50 acre out of which one

acre has been purchased by the petitioner. The dispute arose when the original holder started the construction on the piece of land of Khasra No.1/3

for starting the showroom of Maruti Suzuki. Subsequent aks were prepared which is also been filed and relied upon by the respondent but primarily

the document attached at page No.81 do not co-relate with the subsequent aks. On filing an application before the Collector under Section 107, stay

was granted by the Collector on the entire piece of land of Khasra No.1/3 admeasuring 4.50 acre. Looking to both the AKS which locate the said

property separately, the order of stay was challenged before the Board of Revenue, but the Board in place of deciding the legality and propriety of the

said interim order, dropped the entire proceedings of the Collector which were initiated by the petitioner relying upon the report of the Settlement

Officer called by the Collector, during proceedings.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.8 has placed reliance on the amended provision of Section 50 (6)(iv) of M.P. Land Revenue Code inter alia

contending that the Board of Revenue may pass any order with respect to the proceedings pending before the Collector, therefore, the order passed

by the Board of Revenue is within its competence which do not warrant interference. In addition, it is urged that if one acre of the land has been

purchased by the petitioner on his/her asking, the stay of the entire land of Khasra No.1/3 admeasuring 4.50 acre cannot be directed, therefore, the

interim order passed by the Collector may be set aside. At last, it is submitted that he is raising the construction for showroom of the Maruti Suzuki

which is required within time frame. In any case if interim order is passed, it would cause irreparable loss to the respondent, therefore also stay may

not be granted on the entire piece of land.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after perusal of the provision of Section 50(6)(iv), it is apparent

that such power cannot be exercised by the Board of Revenue for the original proceedings of the Collector but in is a revision pending before the

Collector, therefore, the argument as advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is of no force under the law, hence it may be repelled. So far as the

interim order passed by the Collector is concerned, it is urged by him that the Court of Collector has also granted stay in favour of the petitioner

protecting his right because the aks of land of Khasra No.1/3 admeasuring 4.50 acre itself is in dispute which can only be corrected by the Collector

and without such correction, it cannot be determined that whether the land of the petitioner is situated on which place in the entire Khasra number. In

such circumstances, if any stay is granted by the Collector, it do not warrant any interference. It is urged by him that the Collector may be directed to

decide the proceedings as early as possible within the time frame and till then interim order may be continued.

After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the first argument as advanced by the respondent showing competence

of the Board of Revenue to close the original proceedings before the Collector is misplaced, after going through the language of Section 50 (1) and

Section 50 (6)(iv) of the MP Land Revenue Code. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the Board of Revenue while entertaining the

revision arising out of an order passed in original proceedings by the Collector, cannot close the proceedings of the Collector, therefore, the order of

the Board of Revenue is in excess to the jurisdiction which is not conferred on him. Therefore, the order passed by the Board of Revenue stands set

aside.

In view of setting aside of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the natural corollary is that the matter ought to be remitted back to the Board

of Revenue to judge the legality, propriety of the interim order passed by the Collector. But looking to the fact that the respondent No.8 is also in need

of the land and he is the owner of the entire land of Khasra No.1/3 admeasuring 4.50 acre out of which 1 acre land was sold to the petitioner and the

situation of the said land out of Khasra No.1/3 is in dispute, therefore, in place of remitting the matter back to the Board of Revenue, I am of the

considered opinion that the Collector, District Chhindwara shall look into the old aks and the proceedings of the Batankan and also verify the fact that

whether the land of Khasra No. 1/3 is situated as per the boundaries specified in the sale deed and which piece of land was sold by respondent No.8

to the petitioner and the same be specified in his order and accordingly the aks be permitted to be prepared. While passing the said order, Collector

shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 and other affected persons, if any. The aforesaid exercise shall be

completed by the Collector within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties submits that the stay granted by the Collector may be vacated on filing an

affidavit that if any construction is raised by them it will be removed by them. However, in this regard they are at liberty to apply before the Collector

itself who may look into the same and may pass appropriate order if he deems fit.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.