NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 3430 of 2002

Umrao Singh & Ors. …..Appellants

Vs.

State of M.P. & Ors. …….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1. The facts of the case are as under:

2. On 31st October, 1956 the Government of the erstwhile

State of Madhya Pradesh issued circular No.3609 dated

31st October 1956 providing for allotment of beed land by

way of compensation to the former Zamindars and which

was  already  in  their  cultivating   possession,  but  had

come to be vested in the  State  Government  under  the

Madhya  Bharat  Zamindari  Abolition  Act,  1951.   The

appellants  herein,  being  such  zamindars  and  taking

advantage of the aforesaid circular were allotted 4 Bighas

and 15 Biswas of land in Survey No.48/1 and 14 Biswas

of land in Survey No.441 making a total area of 5 Bighas

and 9 Biswas vide order dated           13th August 1960.

As  per  the  case  of  the  appellants  the  Collector  of  the

District in exercise of his suo-moto powers set aside the

allotment  of  the  suit  land  except  for  one  Biswas  in

Survey No.441 vide order dated 20th August 1974.  This

order  was  challenged  by  the  appellants  before  the

Commissioner of the Division and having failed, filed a

civil  suit  in  the  Court  of  the  Civil  Judge,  Class  II

impugning  the  order  of  the  Collector  and  the

Commissioner.  The  Civil  Court  after  framing  issues

relating to the case decreed the suit vide judgment dated

7th January  1981.    This  judgment  and  decree  was

challenged in first appeal by the State Government before

the Additional District Judge,  Shajapur which too was,

dismissed on  7th May 1993.  A second appeal was taken

2

by  the  State  of  M.P.  before  the  High  Court   on  the

following substantial question of law:

“Whether  on  the  facts  and  in  the circumstances  of  the case,  the court below has erred in granting the relief to  the  plaintiffs  on  the  basis  of  the executive  instructions  of  the Government?  

and  after  hearing  the  contesting  parties,  the  appeal  was

allowed and the judgment and decree granted by the courts

below was set  aside by judgment dated 31st March 2001.

The  land  owner/allottees  are  before  us  in  the  present

appeal.  

3.        The learned counsel for the appellants has raised

two arguments before us in the course of the hearing;  first,

that the suo-moto power of revision which the Collector had

exercised had not been vested in him by any Statute and if

such a power did exist it had been exercised after an unduly

long period of time and as such the interference made by him

was unjustified,  and secondly  that the question of law that

had  been  framed  had  not  been  answered  and  for  this

additional  reason  the  appeal  must  succeed.   The  learned

3

counsel  for  the respondents has,  however,  pointed out  that

the  Tehsildar  had no  authority  to  allot  the  land under  the

executive  instructions  and  that  the  Collector  had  not

exercised  his  suo-moto   powers  but  had  declined  to  grant

approval  to the order of the Tehsildar making the allotment

and that the matter had been kept pending for this purpose.

It has also been pleaded that the executive instructions dated

31st  October  1956   had  been  withdrawn  under  the

Government letter dated 23rd June 1975, and as the matter

was  pending  before  the  Commissioner  at  that  stage,  the

allotment had been rightly cancelled.

4. We  have  considered  the  arguments  advanced  by  the

learned counsel  for the parties.   It  appears from the record

that the Collector had not exercised suo-moto powers  while

cancelling the allotment made to the appellants but had made

a  decision  on  a  matter  which  was  already  pending  for  his

approval.  We are, thus,  of the opinion that the argument of

the learned counsel for the appellants does not appear to be

correct.   We  also  find  from  a   perusal  of  the  impugned

judgment that the High Court has relied upon, several other

4

judgments of the  Madhya Pradesh High Court holding that

the  aforesaid  executive  instructions  of  1956  created  only  a

concession in favour of the land owner and not a right in them

and as such they could not claim entitlement as a matter of

right.  Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the present

case the allotment had, in fact, been made by the Tehsildar

way back in the  year  1960 and had been set  aside  by the

Collector though the land admittedly continued to remain in

possession  of  the  erstwhile  owner.   It  appears  that  in  the

meanwhile  and  as  a  consequence  of  the  aforementioned

judgments, the circular of 1975 was issued withdrawing the

circular  of  31st October,  1956  and  for  closing  all  pending

cases.  It is equally true as on the date of the issuance of the

aforesaid  circular,  the  Collector  had  already  declined  to

confirm the allotment made to the appellants and the matter

was pending before the Commissioner.  The learned counsel

for the appellants has, however, argued that as the circular of

1975  had  never  been  produced  on  record,  it  could  not,

therefore, be made applicable to the present proceedings.  We

find  that  the  decisions  rendered  by  three  Division  Bench

5

judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court holding that the

executive instructions of 1956 had no binding force and being

contrary to the provisions of  the  Madhya Bharat Zamindari

Abolition  Act,  1951  could  not  be  applied  to  justify  an

allotment to an erstwhile land owner, cannot be ignored.   We

have, therefore, no option, but to dismiss the appeal, with no

order as to costs.

………………………….J. (TARUN

CHATTERJEE)

………………………….. J.

(HARJIT  SINGH BEDI )

New Delhi Dated:  May 16,  2008

6