Madhya Pradesh High Court
Khursheed Ali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 August, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 WP No. 17777 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 17777 of 2011
(KHURSHEED ALI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 05-08-2024
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for the respondents /
State.
The matter was argued at length.
2. It appears that in a civil suit, Naib Tahsildar without any
authority entered into a compromise thereby accepting the title of the
petitioner.
3. On 3.11.2011 a show cause notice was issued by the then
Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal to Bajrang Bahadur Singh,
the then Naib Tahsildar, Nazul City, Bhopal thereby mentioning that
he had entered into a compromise with the petitioner without approval
by the State and accordingly, he was called upon to explain as to why
action may not be taken against him under the M.P. Civil Services
(Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, but thereafter, it appears
that show cause notice dated 3.11.2011 never saw the light of the day.
However that was not the end of the misdeeds of the State authorities.
4. On 17.8.2011 Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava, the then
Collector, Bhopal issued the impugned show cause notice to the
petitioner thereby mentioning as to why the power of suo- moto
2 WP No. 17777 of 2011
revision against the mutation order, by which, the name of the
petitioner was mutated in the revenue records, be not exercised.
5. Thus, Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava, the then Collector was
aware of the fact that the Naib Tahsildar had entered into a
compromise illegally but in spite of that, no action was taken by Shri
Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava to challenge the decree.
6. It appears that thereafter First Appeal No. 334/2013 was filed
by the State against the judgment and decree which was passed on the
basis of the compromise and the said first appeal was dismissed by a
Division Bench of this court by judgment dated 28.4.2014, by which
liberty was granted to the State to file a civil suit for challenging the
said decree.
7. Thereafter, nothing was done by the State to take any action to
challenge the decree either by filing an application on the ground that
the decree was obtained by playing fraud or by any legally permissible
method because Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC bars fresh suit on the
ground that the compromise, on which, decree is based, was not
proper.
8. It is really shocking that although the property of the State was
being mishandled by the various revenue authorities but still the
officers were never interested in correcting their house and Shri Nikunj
Kumar Shrivastava who was aware of the misdeeds of his Naib
Tahsildar also, did not take any step to challenge the decree.
9. Be that whatever it may be.
10. The most unfortunate part is that the State authorities woke
up only when they were called upon to do so by this Court.
3 WP No. 17777 of 2011
11. On 18.4.2024 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the
following orders :-
"Dated : 18-04-2024
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri Anubhav Jain - Government
Advocate for respondents/State.
........................................................................
Let the record of First Appeal No.334
of 2013 be placed before this Court for
consideration.
State counsel is directed to file an
affidavit of the Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue to the effect that
despite liberty being granted in First Appeal
No.334 of 2013 to the State Government to
prefer a civil suit and to seek the relevant
relief as claimed for and despite lapse of
almost a decade no such civil suit is being
preferred till date. A specific question is
being put to the State counsel that as to
whether any civil suit is being filed, on
information (letter dated 18.04.2024)
received from the authority, he fairly
submits that an OIC has been appointed for
filing civil suit, but no date is mentioned that
on which date OIC is appointed to deal with
the proceeding to file a civil suit.
Let an affidavit of the Principal
Secretary of the Department be filed to
clarify the position who are all the OICs who
have dealt with the present matter since
2011 till date.
He further directed to clarify that once
there is a ground taken by the State
authorities that the concerning Naib
Tahsildar Bajrang Bahadur was not
competent to enter into compromise in the
matter, despite of the same in the civil suit
No.153-A/2009 has entered into a
compromise and the judgment and decree
dated 04.08.2010 was passed, what action
has been taken by the State authorities
against the said Naib Tahsildar.
Let the aforesaid be placed on record
under the signatures of the Principal
Secretary of the Department by the next date
of hearing. 15 days' time is granted to do the
needful failing which the Principal Secretary
of the Department has to mark his presence
before this Court to explain the
circumstances.
List the matter on 10.05.2024.
Copy of this order be send to Principal
Secretary, Revenue for necessary
compliance."
12. On 10.5.2024 following orders were passed :-
Dated : 10-05-2024
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Anubhav Jain - Government
Advocate for respondents/State.
........................................................................
Counsel appearing for the State prays
for and is granted seven days' further time,
as a matter of last indulgence to comply with
the earlier order dated 18.04.2024.
List the matter in the week
commencing 20.05.2024.
IR (if any) to continue till the next
date of hearing."
13. On 16.7.2024 following orders were passed :-
Dated : 16-07-2024
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for
petitioner.
Shri Dilip Parihar - Panel Lawyer for
respondents/State.
.........................................................................
Counsel for State prays for and is
granted a day's time to submit following
informations :-
(i) What action has been taken by the
Principal Secretary (Revenue) against the
OICs, whose name have figured in the list of
OICs, which has been filed as Annexure A/3
along with I.A.No.205/2024 and if no action
has been taken then the Principal Secretary
(Revenue) shall also explain as to why he
has given clean chit to the OICs who
are/were responsible for sitting over the
matter.
(ii) The Principal Secretary (Revenue)
shall also give the details of the action,
which he has taken against the erring Naib
Tahsildar who according to the respondent
was not authorized to enter into a
compromise.
List on 18.07.2024.
It is made clear that any lethargic
attitude shown by the Principal Secretary
(Revenue) shall be treated as silent approval
of misdeeds of the Revenue Authorities."
14. On 18.7.2024 following orders were passed.
Dated : 18-07-2024
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri H.S. Ruprah - Additional Advocate
General with Shri Anubhav Jain -
Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
........................................................................
It is submitted by Shri Ruprah that it
was the present Principal Secretary
(Revenue), who had unearthed the present
discrepancy while he was posted as
Collector Bhopal. Show cause notices were
issued to the OICs in the month April 2024
but later on as the present Principal
Secretary (Revenue) was out of country,
therefore, the same could not be pursued
with all seriousness and undertakes to pursue
the matter seriously without any further
delay and prays for two weeks' time to do
the needful.
Considering the submissions made by
counsel for the State, a last opportunity of
two weeks is granted to file a report with
regard to action taken by the Principal
Secretary (Revenue), against the erring OICs
and others, who according to him were
responsible for the entire scam.
As prayed, list this case on
05.08.2024."
15. Two affidavits i.e. IA No.205/2024 and I.A. No.222/2024
have been filed.
16. It is really surprising that these affidavits have been filed by
the same person who by issuing the impugned show cause notice was
aware that misdeeds have been done by his Naib Tahsildar, but
conveniently did not challenge the decree.
17. Be that whatever it may be.
18. Today when certain questions were being put to the Counsel
for the State in the light of the affidavits as well as action taken report
which has been filed as I.A. No.11063/2024, it was once again prayed
by Shri Anubhav Jain that further time may be granted to seek
instructions.
19. Thus, it is clear that the respondents are still not serious in
correcting their house and they are still out and out to protect their
officers and only when specific questions are asked by this Court, then
they are half heartedly taking action against their officers.
20. As already pointed out, on 3.11.2011 a show cause notice
was issued by the then Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal to
Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib Tahsildar but thereafter, the file
never saw the light of the day. Nothing has been said by the
respondents in their affidavit or in their compliance report about the
steps taken by them to fix the liability of the Commissioner, Bhopal
Division, Bhopal as well as the persons who were responsible for
assuring that no action is taken on show cause notice dated 3.11.2011.
Even role of Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava is not very encouraging
because even after coming to know that fraud has been played by
Bajrang Bahadur Singh, Naib Tahsildar as he had illegally and without
authority entered into a compromise thereby accepting the title and
possession of the petitioner, but did not propose any departmental
action against Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib Tahsildar or for
taking any action for challenging the decree.
21. It is true that FA No.334/2013 was filed to challenge the
judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.153-A/09 decided by 5th
Additional District Judge, Bhopal on 4.8.2010, but it is not known as to
whether the said first appeal was filed at the instance of Shri Nikunj
Kumar Shrivastava or was at the instance of some other officer. Even
the record pertaining to grant of sanction for filing first appeal by the
Law Department has not been placed on record.
22. Under these circumstances, where the State has failed to
show its seriousness in dealing with the matter, no further opportunities
can be granted to answer the questions which are arising on the basis of
the pleadings / documents filed along with affidavit dated 9.5.2024 and
affidavit dated 17.5.2024 sworn by Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava,
Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Madhya
Pradesh as well as compliance report filed along with an affidavit of
Shri N. K. Khare, SDM, City Bhopal, District Bhopal. Even the name
of the then Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Bhopal who sat over
the show cause notice dated 3.11.2011 has not been disclosed.
23. Be that whatever it may be.
24. Under these circumstances, this Court is left with no other
option but to issue notice to Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava, Former
Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue to file his personal
response pointing out the steps which were taken by him before or
after issuing impugned show cause notice dated 17.8.2011.
25. Also issue notice to Bajrang Bahadur Singh, the then Naib
Tahsildar to explain that under whose instructions, he had entered into
a compromise and also to show cause as to why he may not be directed
to pay the mesne profit @ Rs.20,000/- per month to the State of M.P.
from the date of compromise till final disposal of this case.
26. The notices to Shri Nikunj Kumar Shrivastava and Shri
Bajrang Bahadur Singh shall be served through Chief Secretary, State
of M.P.
27. The respondent no.1 is also directed to produce the record of
show cause notice dated 3.11.2011 issued by Commissioner, Revenue
Division, Bhopal and also the record by which sanction was granted to
file First Appeal. The State is also directed to file the record pertaining
to posting of Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh from the date of compromise
till today.
28. Let the reply be filed on or before 26.8.2024.
29. List on 30.8.2024.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
JITENDRA KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf019e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64a5a,
postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
PAROUHA serialNumber=627378D3EE51220F5E81130EECF5ABBEC55EBB6B78033E5FF10402B1914
3AD99, cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA
Date: 2024.08.06 14:37:45 +05'30'
JP
