Thakur Prakash Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2819 MP

                                   1                               WA-1382-2019
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   WA-1382-2019
           (THAKUR PRAKASH SINGH Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Jabalpur, Dated : 29-06-2021
       Heard through Video Conferencing.

       Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anshul Tiwari,
for the petitioner.
       Shri Ashish Anand Bernard, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondents/ State.

This appeal has been filed by Thakur Prakash Singh challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.7.2019 in W.P. No. No.11204/2016 by which his writ petition has been dismissed.

The appellant/ writ petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the orders dated 29.5.2015, 1.10.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Niwas, District Mandla, order dated 6.8.2015 passed by the Collector, Mandla and order dated 18.3.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Revenue, Jabalpur. By the impugned orders, permission was granted for review of the order dated 9.11.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,

Niwas, District Mandla.

Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that what was challenged before the learned Single Judge was whether the permission sought from the Commissioner for review of the order dated 9.11.2001 should have been granted or not. Referring to the order dated 15.2.2016 passed by the Collector, Mandla, who made the reference to the Commissioner, the learned Senior Advocate submitted that the reasons given in that order were intended to support the plea for review of the earlier order but the learned Single Judge has fallen into error by holding that the Sub Divisional Officer rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code without appreciating the fact that the order dated 1.10.2015.

That the Sub Divisional Officer earlier vide order dated 1.10.2015 held 2 WA-1382-2019 that he could not suo motu exercise jurisdiction under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code to review the order passed in the year 2001 and 2003. The learned Single Judge has further fallen into error in holding the revenue authorities were justified in granting permission to review the order dated 9.11.2001, by not appreciating that the Collector vide its subsequent order

dated 15.2.2016 had not desired to exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code but had requested the revenue Commissioner to exercise the said jurisdiction, who as against exercising suo motu jurisdiction, granted permission to the Collector which in fact was not asked by the Collector.

Shri Ashish Bernard, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that after the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the Collector had on the basis of permission granted for review by the Commissioner passed the final order on 30th December, 2020 and thus, the order passed by the Commissioner has already been acted upon. Therefore, nothing survives to be decided in the present appeal as now even the order of learned Single Bench upholding the permission granted for review of the order has outlived its purpose.

Shri Prashant Singh, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Collector in passing the aforesaid order dated 30th December, 2020 has referred to the findings recorded by the learned Single Bench in the impugned judgment and has in fact singularly based on his findings thereon while passing the impugned order. The Collector has thus failed to apply his mind independently whether or not the order dated 9.11.2001 passed by the S.D.O. Niwas is liable to be reviewed.

In our considered opinion, now when the new order dated 30th December 2020 has been passed by the Collector, Mandla, there is no occasion for us to examine the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge because what in essence was argued before the learned Single Bench was whether the permission for review of the order dated 9.11.2001 3 WA-1382-2019 passed by the S.D.O., Niwas could, in law, be granted by the Revenue Commissioner. When that permission, which was granted, has been acted upon and the earlier order has been reviewed and fresh order has been passed on 30.12.2020, it gives a fresh cause of action to the appellant.

Aside or the fact that the learned Single Judge has given his own reasoning in the order impugned before us, there are already detailed reasoning available in the order of the Collector dated 15.2.2016 and the other orders, which were assailed before the Single Bench. Therefore, we make it clear that if appellant were to challenge the aforesaid order of Collector dated 15.2.2016 in a new writ petition, it would be open for him to agitate that the Collector was unduly influenced by the reasonings given by the learned Single

Judge but at the same time it would also be open for respondent State Authorities to agitate that those reasonings are supported from what was recorded in the orders of the S.D.O. dated 29.5.2015 and 1.10.2015 and Collector, Mandla dated 6.8.2015 and 15.2.2016 and Commissioner, Revenue, Jabalpur dated 18.3.2016, independent of the reasonings given in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Bench. Therefore, the learned Single Bench, while considering the fresh writ petition, need not take any influence from the findings recorded in the judgment impugned herein.

With the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is disposed of.

                                             (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)                              (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
                                              CHIEF JUSTICE                                           JUDGE


                                       mrs. mishra




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by MRS DEEPA MISHRA
Date: 2021.07.01 15:51:45 IST