Madhya Pradesh High Court
MP/854/2018 of SMT. BANO BEE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IVON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 854 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
SMT. BANO BEE W/O SHRI TAHIR ALI D/O SHRI HAIDERALI, R/O VILLAGE GANESHPURA TEHSIL AND DISTRICTGUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI YOGESH SINGHAL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1.STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHCOLLECTOR DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYAPRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
2.HARI SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI BHARAT SINGHYADAV, R/O VILLAGE GANESHPURA, TEHSIL ANDDISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)YADAV, R/O VILLAGE GANESHPURA, TEHSIL ANDDISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS PADAMSHRI AGRAWAL - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTNO.1/STATE )(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge ismade to the order dated 14/11/2017 passed by Board of Revenue, Gwalior incase No.636-PBR/17, order dated 24/5/2017 passe by Collector, Guna in CaseNo.04/Suo Moto Revision/2016-17 as well as show-cause notice dated31/12/2016 issued by Collector, District Guna in case No.04/Suo MotuRevision/2016-17.
2. Main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that theCollector has no power to take suo motu cognizance after 180 days from thedate of Patta in the light of judgment passed in the case of Ranveer Singh(Dead) Through L.Rs. & another Vs. State of M.P., ILR [2011] MP, 1(para 38) and order of Collector issuing notice is out of jurisdiction. It isfurther submitted that on receiving notice, petitioner has filed a preliminaryobjection before the Collector, which has been dismissed by order dated24/5/2017, against which revision was filed before the Board of Revenue, whoalso not considered the legal point and submissions made by learned counselfor the petitioner and revision has been dismissed. Legal submission has notbeen considered by the Board of Revenue.
3. Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent no.1/State submits that althoughthe preliminary objection raising legal question was filed by the petitioner, butcitation, which is being cited today, was not brought before the Collector orBoard of Revenue while this judgment has come in the year 2011. Learnedcounsel for respondent no.1/State further submits that there is no limitation fortaking suo motu cognizance. When the illegality is brought to the notice of theauthority, suo motu cognizance can be taken by the authority concerned. Sincean another allotment/Patta has also been done in favour of petitioner's husbandbefore the allotment in dispute, thus the second settlement in favour ofpetitioner could not be made and settlement/Patta was done in favour of thepetitioner in contravention of the law. Thus, it should be cancelled.
4. In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner submits that before the year 1984 petitioner was divorced by her husband. Thus, she cannot be amember of the family of her husband.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent no.1/State and perused the record.
6. Perusal of record shows that complaint made by Hari Singh is notannexed. Show Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner on the basis ofcomplaint of Hari Singh. In the case cited by the petitioner, limitation to takesuo moto revision is 180 days from the knowledge of fact, thus, ratio laid downin case of Ranveer Singh (Supra) does not come to help the petitioner.Collector rightly rejected the application of petitioner.
7. So far as divorce of petitioner is concerned, it is a matter of fact whichcan be considered on the merit after evidence is adduced by both party.Collector has to decide the case on merit.
8. No illegality or irregularity is formed in the impugned orders. Nointerference is warranted.
9. In view of above, petition is dismissed directing the Collectorconcerned to decide the case/suo moto revision preferably within four months.Petitioner is directed to appear before the Collector concerned on 19/2/2024.
Arun*
(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV)JUDGE