Full Judgment
1 W.P. 1911/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No.1911 of 2013 SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE A.K. SHRIVASTAVA Petitioner : Jalam S/o Shri Narayan Prasad R/o Gram Jova, Tahsil Ghansor, District Seoni, M.P. -Versus- RespondentS:
1. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, M.P.
2. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Seoni, M.P. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner by - Shri Vipin Yadav, Advocate. Respondents by - Shri Anubhav Jain, Panel Lawyer ORDER
( 22/07/2013) The order passed in this writ petition shall also govern the disposal of connected Writ Petition No.1909/2013 (Lelam Vs, State of M.P. and Others) and W.P. No.1553/2013 (Lekhram Vs. State of M.P. and Others).
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ghansor, District Seoni in Review Case No.42/A-73/2009-10 Annexure P/3 by which in pursuance to the letter of the Collector, 2 W.P. 1911/2013 Seoni No.2260/reader collector/2010 dated 27.07.2010, the SDO has reviewed his own order dated 4.6.2010 passed in review case No.42/A-73/2009-10.
3. On bare perusal of the earlier order of the SDO dated 4.6.2010 passed in Case No.42/A-73/2009-10 (Annexure P/1) this Court finds that on account of chopping the teak wood from his own land without obtaining requisite permission it was directed to deposit 10% of the amount of the total value of the trees and the Divisional Forest Officer was directed deduct that amount from the total value of the trees and the remaining amount be paid to the petitioner.
4. It appears that thereafter by some administrative order passed by Additional Collector, Seoni vide letter No.2260/reader collector/2010 dated 27.07.2010, the SDO has been directed to review his order (Annexure P/1) and hence the impugned order dated 5.10.2010 Annexure P/3 has been passed by the SDO in pursuance to the said order in the review.
5. I have heard Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anubhav Jain, learned panel lawyer for respondents. Having heard them, I am of the view that this petition and connected writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
5. After having passed a judicial order in revenue case No.42/A-73/2009-10 dated 4.6.2010 (Annexure P/1) by Sub Divisional Officer, the said authority can review his own order 3 W.P. 1911/2013 either on its own motion or on the application made by any person interested in review. But here, neither the Sub Divisional Officer has reviewed his earlier order upon his own motion or upon any application submitted by any person interested in review. Thus, according to me, exercising of power under Section 253 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (for short, “the Code”.) is ex-facie without jurisdiction. That apart, such power cannot be exercised on the basis of some administrative order and the directions given by the Collector. The return has been filed by the respondents and the only objection which has been raised in the return is that petitioner is having an alternative remedy under Section 44 of the Code by filing an appeal. Learned panel lawyer has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court passed in W.P. No.8256/2013 Annexure R/1. The said order Annexure R/1 of this Court appears to be not applicable in the present case because it was passed under the Forest Act. However, in the present case, the proceedings are commenced under Section 240 of the Code.
7. According to me, so far as the ground of availing alternative remedy is concerned, indeed when the Sub Divisional Officer on the basis of administrative letter of the Additional Collector No.2260/reader collector/2010 has reviewed its order and the appellate authority is the same who has directed the Sub Divisional Officer to review his own order, therefore, it cannot be 4 W.P. 1911/2013 said that petitioner is having an efficacious and alternative remedy. That apart, there is absolute bar of filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even if there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner.
8. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the judicial order which was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 4.6.2010 in Case No.42/A-73/2009-10 (Annexure P/1) cannot be permitted to be reviewed by any administrative order. I have already held hereinabove that provision of review can be exercised only upon two conditions, firstly the authority can review his own order upon its own motion and secondly he can exercise such power if an application is filed by any person interested in review. Since none of the condition is existing in the present case, the impugned order dated 05.10.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ghansor, District Seoni in Review Case No.42/A-73/2009-10 Annexure P/3 cannot be allowed to remain stand, the same is hereby quashed.
9. This petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of W.P. No.1909/2013 and 1553/2013. (A.K. Shrivastava) Judge rao 5 W.P. 1911/2013 6 W.P. 1911/2013