Skip to main content


13. Harprasad Bahorelal (Applicant) Vs Board of Revenue (Non applicant)

Sub:- This case is based on Sections 50 and 244 of the MP Land Revenue Code

Facts of the case :-

1. Revaram (Respondent) filed an application before the Tahsildar, Banda for the allotment of a plot on 15 September 1958. This land was situated at Tahsil Banda, Mauja Shahgarh.

2. Harprasad (Applicant) also moved an application before the SDO on 30 November 1959 for the allotment of the same plot.

3. As a result, the SDO, Banda passed an order for the allot- ment of the said plot in favour of Harprasad on 15 February, 1959.

4. The Tahsildar released the lease of the said land to Harprasad on 4 March, 1959.

5. But, the Tahsildar and the SDO both were unaware of the application of Sevaram or they did not take notice of it.

6. Therefore, Revaram filed an appeal before the SDO against the order of release of lease passed by the Tahsildar.

First appeal :-

The SDO dismissed the said appeal because the release of lease by the Tahsildar to the Plaintiff was an administrative work which he did in compliance of the order of the SDO.

Second appeal:-

Revaram preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur which was dismissed


Thereafter, Revaram filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, MP. The Board of Revenue set aside the order of the SDO by describing it as legal disobedience and said that the order of the SDO was inconsistent with Section 244 because if there are more than one applicant for the allotment, than the allotment must have been done through auction.

High Court : -

Therefore, Harprasad filed a petition under Article of the Constitution against the order of the Revenue Board.

It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the order of the Tahsildar cannot be changed by an appeal. Therefore, revision cannot lie against it.

The High Court was of the view that Section 50 of the MP Land Revenue Code confers vast powers to the Revenue Board. Therefore, The High Court may review the order of the lower Court.

Since, the allotment was unlawfully made in violation of Section 244 and the SDO committed irregularities in the allotment. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is valid.

Judgment Petition dismissed.

Law points :-

1. The Board of Revenue may, even suo motu, revise the order of the lower Court.

2. There is no time limit for a revision.

3. No appeal lies against the administrative work of the Tahsildar.

4. If an allotment has been made in violation of allotment rules, then such an allotment may be annulled.


Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut

1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref : AIR 1970 SC 1906 Sub :- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Facts of the case :- 1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent. 2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship. 3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it. 4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day. 5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning. 6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river.