Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Madhubati Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2022
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 4821 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
SMT MADHUBATI RAJAK D/O DAYAL RAJAK W/O
RAMESH PRASAD RAJAK, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE 25/248, BAYANTAK
BATALIYAN REWA AT PRESENT UPPAL
WORKSHOP VIVEKANAND NAGAR, BARA, REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAM SHARAN RATHORE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH COLLECTOR REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MUKUT LAL NIRMALI S/O SHRI SUKURI
NIRMAL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE TENDUA PADAN TAHSIL
HANUMANA AT PRESENT UPPAN MOTORS
WORKSHOP VIVEKANAND NAGAR BARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. RAMESH KUMAR S/O MUKUBATI RAJAK R/O
VILLAGE TENDUA PADAN TAHSIL
HANUMANA AT PRESENT UPPAN MOTORS
WORKSHOP VIVEKANAND NAGAR BARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. KUSUM SINGH W/O SHRI RAJENDRA
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O BARA,
TAHSIL HUZUR REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. REWA SUDHAR NYAS REWA, AT PRESENT
NAGAR NIGAM REWA THR.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 12/9/2022
3:46:04 PM
2
COM M ISSIONER NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM,
REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIKHA SHARMA, PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admissoin this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
The matter was listed on 27/09/2022 but no one entered appearance
on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 though served.
Today again there is no appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.2
to 5.
With the consent of counsel for the petitioner and learned Panel
Lawyer, matter is heard finally.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case,
order of mutation in favour of the petitioner dated 26/02/1997 was
reversed in exercise of suo moto power conferred under Section 50 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code by the Collector by passing the
order dated 30/10/2006. The said order of the Collector dated 30/10/2006
was not within the knowledge of the petitioner and when the petitioner
made an effort to deposit the property tax in the office of Municipal
Corporation, Rewa then only she come to know about passing of the
order dated 30/10/2006 by the Collector and after obtaining the certified
copy of the same, the present petitioner filed a revision before the
Commissioner. The said revision was dismissed vide order dated
01/07/2011 on the ground of limitation. The Commissioner observed that
there was delay of 5 years in filing of revision and therefore interference
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 12/9/2022
3:46:04 PM
was declined. Thereafter, again an application was moved by the petitioner
seeking review of the order of Commissioner dated 01/07/2011 and the
said review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 29/04/2013. Then
the matter was litigated upto the Board of Revenue and the Board of
Revenue also vide order dated 22/09/2018 dismissed the revision preferred
by the petitioner. Thus, assailing the orders passed by the Collector,
Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, this petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Commissioner
failed to appreciate the explanation submitted by the petitioner as regards
delay. It is submitted by the counsel that a whole prolong paragraph 12
was devoted in the memorandum of revision to demonstrate that the
petitioner was not in the knowledge of the fact that there was some order
passed by the Collector in exercise of suo moto powers conferred under
Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code and only when the tax was being
deposited with the office of Municipal Corporation, Rewa, it was informed
to the petitioner that there is an order by the Collector by which the earlier
order of mutation in favour of the petitioner was recalled and reversed.
Therefore, the specific averments made in paragraph 12 of the revision
ought to have been dealt with by the Commissioner while passing the
impugned order dated 01/07/2011. It is contended by the counsel that the
Commissioner while passing a non speaking order, rejected the revision in
a purely mechanical manner without adverting to the explanation putforth
by the petitioner as regards delay. It is further contended by the counsel
that even an effort was made by the petitioner to seek review of the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 12/9/2022
3:46:04 PM
order and the same was also declined by the Commissioner.
Subsequently, the Board of Revenue also declined to interfere with the
matter by passing the order dated 22/09/2018.
Learned counsel thus submits that as undisputedly the order
impugned by the Collector was passed in exercise of suo moto power of
revision, thus, there was no question of any notice to the present petitioner
and the order dated 30/10/2006 was passed by the Collector behind the
back of the petitioner without issuing any show cause notice. It is
contended by the counsel that in such an eventuality the Commissioner
ought to have dealt with the revision of the petitioner on merit instead of
dismissing the same on the ground of limitation. To support his
contention, learned counsel placed reliance in the judgment of Apex Court
in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. krishnamurthy reported in 1998
(7) SCC 123. In the present petition there was no lapses on the part of the
petitioner inasmuch as they were not aware about the passing of the order
of Collector under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, and they had no
occasion to challenge the same at earlier point of time and as the reasons
were satisfactorily putforth by the petitioner in paragraph 12 of the
revision, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to deal with the same,
thus, submits that the impugned order deserves quashment.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the
Commissioner while taking into consideration the explanation as putforth
by the petitioner has rightly passed the order dated 01/07/2011 and as
there was failure on the part of the petitioner to explain the delay
satisfactorily. The revision was rightly dismissed being time barred. It is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 12/9/2022
3:46:04 PM
further contended by the counsel that there was inordinate delay of 5 years
which was required to be explained by the petitioner and in absence of any
plausible explanation, the Commissioner did not commit any error while
passing the order impugned. Thus, submits that since as many as on 3
occasions, the authorities have not dealt with the stand of the petitioner
and categorically came to a conclusion that there is an inordinate delay,
have rightly declined to interfere with the impugned order, therefore,
submits that no interference is required and accordingly the present
petition deserve to be dismissed.
Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner while filing revision before the Commissioner stated
in paragraph 12 as follows:
12& ;g fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds laca/k esa tc
fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa dks uxj fuxe jhok esa VSDl tek djkus ds fy, fnukad
[email protected]@2011 dks xbZ rc mudks crk;k x;k fd vki [kljs dh udy nhft,
muds }kjk [kljs dh udy gsrq fnukad [email protected]@2011 dks vkosnu i=
çLrqr fd;k rks mlesa uxj ikfyd fuxe jhok dk uke ntZ feyk rc
fuxjkuhdrkZx.k vk'p;Z çdV fd;k fd muds LokfeRo dCts n[ky okyh
Hkwfe esa uxj ikfyd fuxe jhok dk dSls uke ntZ dj fn;k x;k gSA mlds
laca/k esa fuxjkuhdrkZx.k }kjk rglhy ds U;k;ky; esa [kljk lq/kkj dk vkosnu
i= çLrqr fd;k vkSj fnukad [email protected]@2011 dks rglhy U;k;ky; ds jhMj
}kjk tkudkjh nh xbZ fd ekuuh; ftyk/;{k egksn; ds vkns'kkuqlkj uxj
ikfyd fuxe jhok dk uke ntZ djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gS rc
fuxjkuhdrkZx.k us ftyk/;{k egksn; ds dk;kZy; esa çdj.k dh ryk'k 'kq:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 12/9/2022
3:46:04 PM
fd;k] vkSj fnukad [email protected]@2011 dks mä udy çkIr djus gsrq jlhn
Øekad 6357 }kjk vkosnu i= çLrqr fd;k tks cudj vkt fnukad
[email protected]@2011 dks cu dj çkIr gqbZ tks fuxjkuh rRi;Zrk ls vkt gh rS;kj
dh tkdj ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k çLrqr dh tk jgh gSA
A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph reveals that the petitioner
furnished explanation as regards the delay which occasioned in filing of
revision before the Commissioner against the order dated 30/10/2006. The
Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 01/07/2011
(Annexure P/10) not at all discussed the contents of paragraph 12 of the
revisions memo. It appears that the Commissioner dealt with the revision
memo in complete ignorance of paragraph 12 of the same proceeded to
decided the revision while passing the impugned order dated 01/07/2011.
The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M.
Krishnamurthy, (supra) in paragraph 11 has held as under :
"11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties.
They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their
remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage
caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such
legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and
wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would
sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the
courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for
launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential
anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in
the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium
(it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation
are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that
parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 12/9/2022
3:46:04 PM
is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of
time."
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, if the impugned
orders are subjected to scrutiny, the same would reveal that none of the
authorities have dealt with paragraph 12 of the revision memo and have
passed the orders impugned in a purely mechanical manner.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid analysis the orders dated 01/07/2011
(Annexure P/10), dated 29/04/2013 (Annexure P/11) and dated 22/09/2018
(Annexure P/12) stand quashed. The matter is remitted back to the
Commissioner Division Rewa to deal with the revision of the petitioner
contained in Annexure P/9, on merit by passing a well reasoned and
speaking order preferably within a period of four months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the petition stands allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Astha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 12/9/2022
3:46:04 PM
