MP High Court Wants Revenue Officers To Attend 6 Months Training After They Pleaded Inability To Understand Court Order As Defense

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed revenue officers including a Tahsildar and Additional District Collector of Narmadapuram to undergo 6 six-month training period, after they misconstrued an earlier order of the High Court in a matter of mutation of legal representatives' names.

The single judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that officers unable to understand the law as well as the directions given by the top courts are not eligible to determine the rights of affected parties through quasi-judicial orders:

“…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 Collector, Narmadapuram is directed to immediately withdraw all quasi-judicial and Magisterial powers from ADM and Tahsildar, Seoni Malwa”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur noted.

The court also clarified that these officers shouldn't be permitted to discharge any magisterial or quasi-judicial functions for one year. Even after training ends, they should be under the supervision of a Senior Officer, the court mandated in its order.

The Senior Officer would scrutinise the efficiency of these officers for another six months until he concludes that the erring officers have attained efficiency to discharge magisterial and quasi-judicial functions. If the findings are adverse, the supervision period would be extended for another 6 months, the court laid down strict conditions for the rest of the revenue officers' tenure.

“…Tahsildar, Seoni Malwa, District Narmadapuram….was aware of the fact that some civil suit with regard to the partition is pending, therefore, prima facie it appears that with a solitary intention to give advantage to one of the litigating party, he directed the Patwari to prepare a proposal for partition…”, the court opined while quashing the previous order of the revenue courts and ordering the reopening of the old case file in alignment with the court's directions.

The respondent authorities will also be liable to pay Rs 25000/- as cost in the above matter for misconstruing the court's orders.

Before the High Court, both the Seoni Malwa Tahsildar and Narmadapuram Additional District Collector denied allegations of extraneous consideration, and submitted that any mistake in interpreting the court order in MP 972/2021 was bonafide.

The court also granted the petitioner liberty to prosecute Rakesh Khajuria, Tahsildar, Seoni Malwa and D.K. Singh, Add. Collector, Narmadapuram under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This step was taken since the court was convinced that there was foul-play in how the revenue officers exercised their powers. The court concluded that they weren't entitled for protection under the Judges Protection Act.

Background & Further Observations

In the order dated 25.09.2023 given in MP 972/2021, the High Court set aside all previous orders of mutation and specifically asked all the parties to appear before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar was instructed to decide the application afresh as per the compromise decree in a civil suit from 1976, which was not considered before. The court also stated that the parties are not entitled to anything except what has been stipulated in the compromise decree. In the said suit, only the title of parties was declared, and no order as to partitioning the properties was made.

However, after the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar based on the court order in MP 972/2021, instead of deciding the aspect of mutation alone, the Tahsildar proposed the partitioning of the properties to the Patwari. This order was upheld in appeal by the Additional Collector without assigning satisfactory reasons. These revenue court orders have been challenged in the current petition by one of the beneficiaries of the compromise decree.

“..it is clear that the Tahsildar, Seoni Malwa, District Narmadapuram has deliberated exceeded its jurisdiction by making an attempt to put a burden of the same on the shoulders of the High Court….”, the court noted.

The petitioner had earlier contended that Tahsildar, Seoni Malwa, District entertained a fresh application instead of reopening the old case for mutation. The official even went to the extent of directing the Patwari to submit the proposal for partition, without there being any application under Section 178 of MP Land Revenue Code, the petitioner argued.

“…Revenue Courts were aware of the fact that MP No.972/2021 was filed against the order passed in the mutation proceedings and thus, the direction given by this Court in MP No.972/2021 is also confined to mutation proceedings…”, the court observed after hearing both sides.

On 25.07.2024, the court directed the District Collector to be personally present on the following day to explain the allegations made by the petitioner against the Tahsildar and Additional District Collector.

On 26.07.2024, the single-judge bench also didn't take lightly the conduct of the Additional District Collector who stood up and waved a brown envelope containing the said letter in open court, when the state's counsel was already making submissions for the Collector's exemption.

The state's counsel had submitted that the Collector, Ms. Sonia Meena, couldn't appear in person on 26.07.2024 owing to some natural calamities in her jurisdiction.

Later, the court asked the Chief Secretary to initiate action against the Collector and Additional Collector for their misconduct towards the court. Additionally, the court has also asked the Chief Secretary to examine whether D.K Singh is eligible to hold the field posting of Additional District Collector.

Advocate Siddharth Gulatee appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Ishteyaq Husain appeared for Respondent No.6. Dy. Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly and Dy. Government Advocate Swati Aseem George represented the state.

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Agarwal v. Nitin Agarwal & Ors.

Case No: MP No. 2213 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 169

Click Here To Read/Download Order