Parties' Rights Cannot Be Left To Mercy Of Officers Who Are Not Able To Understand The Case: MP HC Directs State Govt. To Send Land Revenue Officers For Training
|The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the State Government to send the Land Revenue Officers for training for a period of six months as they failed to understand the law as well as the directions of the Supreme Court and High Court.
The Jabalpur Bench was dealing with a miscellaneous petition filed against the orders of the Tahsildar and Additional Collector.
A Single Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia ordered, “In view of their own stand, this Court is of the considered opinion that the State must immediately send Shri Rakesh Khajuria, Tahsildar, Seoni Malwa, District Narmadapuram and Shri Devendra Kumar Singh, Additional Collector, Narmadapuram for training for a period of six months, because by passing quasi judicial orders under the provisions of MP Land Revenue Code as well as under other statutes they are dealing with the rights of the parties and if they are not able to understand the law as well as the directions given by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court, then rights of the parties cannot be left to the mercy of the officers, who are not in a position to understand the case. Accordingly, it is directed that the State Government shall immediately send Shri Rakesh Khajuria, Tahsildar, Seoni Malwa, District Narmadapuram and Shri Devendra Kumar Singh, Additional Collector, Narmadapuram for training for a period of six months.”
The Bench further directed that the authorities shall not discharge any quasi-judicial power and Magisterial power for a period of one year.
Advocate Siddharth Gulatee appeared for the petitioner while Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly and Advocate Ishteyaq Hussain appeared for the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The respondents filed an application for mutation of their names. The application was allowed by the Tahsildar, however, the appeal filed by petitioner was allowed by SDO and order of mutation was set aside. The appeal filed by the respondents before Additional Commissioner was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as the order passed by the SDO, the respondents preferred a petition. The said had arisen out of the mutation proceedings which resulted in a compromise decree and by a compromise decree the title of the respective parties was declared. No decree for partition or possession was passed. Since the order of mutation, which was allowed by the Tahsildar, was set aside by the SDO and Additional Commissioner, therefore, the same was assailed by the respondents via petition.
The aforesaid petition was disposed of by the High Court which observed that the mutation can be done only in accordance with the decree passed by the Civil Court. Accordingly, the impugned orders were set aside. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred SLP before the Supreme Court but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the Tahsildar directed the respondents to file an application for partition. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Collector and it held that the Tahsildar has already complied with the order of the High Court and hence, no proceedings were left. Challenging the order of the Revenue Courts, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had filed a civil suit for declaration of title as well as for partition which is pending. It was further submitted that the said fact was also brought to the notice of Tahsildar but the Tahsildar directed the Patwari to submit the proposal for partition.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “While Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General was making submissions for exemption of Collector from personal appearance, Shri Devendra Kumar Singh all of sudden took out a brown colored envelope from file and started moving towards the dais along with letter. That envelope was in an open condition and upper part of envelope was in torn condition, which makes it clear that before handing over it to the Court the envelope was already opened and it was read by somebody. It was fairly conceded by Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General that in the morning, the letter was given to him but he decided not to place it on record and had prepared an application for exemption of personal appearance and was making verbal submissions after he was permitted to do so.”
The Court said that it was expected from the Additional Collector that he must be knowing that letter cannot be addressed directly to the Court and that too in pending case.
“Whether Shri Devendra Kumar Singh, Additional Collector is eligible to hold the field posting on the post of Additional Collector or not, is a matter which is to be considered by Chief Secretary. Accordingly, it is left to the wisdom of Chief Secretary as to whether he would permit the indiscipline and disrespectful conduct of his officers towards the Court and he would like to maintain the Majesty of law as well as respect of Constitutional Court or not?”, it added.
The Court condemned the conduct of the Additional Collector and issued a warning to him to remain more vigilant in future in appearing before the Court.
The Court further directed that after completing the training, both the officers shall work under the supervision of a senior officer, who would test the ability of these officers to deal with the quasi-judicial and Magisterial matters and after testing their ability for a period of six months after completion of their training, if the senior officer comes to a conclusion that the officers have attained efficiency to decide the quasi-judicial matters and Magisterial matters in an effective manner, then quasi-judicial power and Magisterial power shall be restored or else the period of supervision shall be extended by a further period of six months, without conferring extra-judicial and Magisterial powers to them.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Chief Secretary to submit its report within one month.
Cause Title- Pradeep Kumar Agarwal v. Nitin Agarwal and Others