A.U Khan, J.M:— (1) This reference by Additional Commissioner Sri Brijendra Singh is here by the order dated 25.3.1994 whereby he recommends that order of trial court dated 24.7.1993 be set aside as respects recall of an approval for allotment of an agricultural lease.
2. On 30.6.1992 Assistant Collector Incharge of the sub-division accords his approval to allot an agricultural lease to Smt. Sumitra Devi, Smt. Savitri Devi, Smt. Gayatri Devi and Mayadin. A complaint and an inquiry. Tahsildar's report dated 21.7.1995 reveals land has not vested in Gaon Sabha and the resolution of Land Management Committee is beside the point. Consequently on 24.7.1993 Sub-Divisional Officer outrightly upturns the approval dated 30.4.1992 Aggrieved by the order Smt. Sumitra Devi and others protest their grievances in a revision.
3. On 25.3.1995 Additional Commissioner Shri Brijendra Singh forwards a reference to set aside the order of trial judge as controversy is accessible to an inquiry under Section 198(4) Z.A Act. The reference dockets here for a final and definitive decision. Heard the counsel for the parties; the record has been perused.
4. A narrative upon which the claim is founded is necessary to set a valid perspective. Bakridi is a bhumidhar tenant of khasra No. 156 situate in village Udgi. He dies leaving behind two sons: Bhagelu and Ale Hassan. In course of time Bhagelu also dies. In sum, Ali Hassan alone is successor in law of the right, title and interest in land. In the meanwhile Ale Hassan's name is recorded over against khsara No. 244 situate in village Udgi. Khatoni extract for 1396 to 1401F affirms this fact. This aspect of the matter is not in controversy.
5. By the same token of reasoning the name of Ale Hassan should have been entered over against khasra No. 156 situate in village Navada Basana. Yet it does not so happen, Ale Hassan says, because of skilful manoeuvers by Pradhan of the village. He moves for mutation saying Bhagelu has died heirless and land has vested in Gaon Sabha. On 3.12.1991 Naib Tahsildar orders and name of Gaon Sabha is mutated. Ale Hassan is greatly distressed. A motion of restoration. On 15.6.1992 court orders for stay of operation of order dated 3.12.1991 This is noted in khatoni on 17.6.1992 On 4.9.1992 the order of mutation dated 3.12.1991 is rescinded. In this manner the deceitful action of Pradhan comes to little.
6. But he has one more devious design in his bonnet. He manages a resolution of Land Management Committee to allot the land in favour of Smt. Sumitra Devi and three others. This is approved by Sub-Divisional Officer on 30.6.1992 On the names of Smt. Sumitra Devi and others are mutated on basis of patta in question. This is the nail against which Ale Hassan again is bitterly impaled. He moves Sub-Divisional Officer to recall the order dated 30.6.1992 An inquiry and he is convinced that land has not vested in Gaon Sabha. Consequently his order dated 24.7.1992 recalling the tainted order dated 30.6.1992
7. Under what provision of law the matter is set for contemplation? The approval of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.6.1992 on Z.A Form 57-B, if accorded on it, is postulated under Rule 176(4) Z.A Rules. The order: an integral part of process of execution of lease—has been held to be a judicial order in 1986 R.D p. 8 H.C and, therefore, is open to revisional subjection under Section 333-A Z.A Act. It is that.
8. Under what provision of law the subsequent order of recall; the order impugned dated 24.7.1993 is founded? If a court is misled it has inherent power to undo the wrong on true facts subsequently coming to notice. More appropriately the order is subsumable under Section 151 C.P.C: 1990 R.D 47 S.C is on this line.
9. The counsel for opposite-party contends that Lekhpal Hira Lal Singh, Kanungo Ram Lal and Naib Tahsildar Hari Mohan Tewari in tandem had misled the court and obtained an illegal order to deprive Ale Hassan of his inherited land. The counsel submits Lekhpal is under suspension and departmental inquiry is going apace. This is proper. The insistence is that land had not vested in Gaon Sabha, that Ale Hassan is heir at law of Bhagelu, his brother, and entitled to succeed. That over against khasra No. 244 his name has been entered: land in village Udgi. For khsara No. 156—not vested in Gaon Sabha—Pradhan has maliciously and adroitly passed a resolution of Land Management Committee; then approval dated 30.6.1992 obtained through dissemblance and utter fraud.
10. Here I will jain an issue on my own. It is in the nature of man to take undue advantage from a person in authority if he acts negligently and carelessly. Whether Sub-Divisional Officer, Handia on 30.6.1992 knew what he was about when according the approval?
11. Why his coolness of scrutiny? One can hardly be a successful judge if he will not possess a shrewdness that prevents him from being deceived by appearances. Here Smt. Savitri Devi and others, impelled by Pradhan, had, in the eloquent words of R.H Tawney: “the greed of the plutocrat eager to snatch from the weakness of public authority an opportunity for personal gain.” (Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, Penguin Books ed, New York, 1947 p. 81).
12. Did Sub-Divisional Officer carefully read Rule 176 Z.A Rules, extracted below, to be serious about the duty imposed by law?
176(1) After selecting the person or persons for admission to the land in accordance with Rule 175, the Committee shall prepare—
(a) a list of persons so selected in Z.A Form 57-B;
(b) a certificate of admission to land in Z.A Form 57; and
(c) a counterpart in Z.A Form 58-A.
(2) The documents referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) shall be duly signed by Chairman of the Land Management Committee but the document referred to in clause (c) shall be signed by the person so selected for admission to land.
(3) The document referred to in sub-rule (1) shall then be forwarded to the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division along with—
(a) a copy of the proceedings of meeting of the Committee in which the decision to settle land was taken; and
(b) a certificate from the Lekhpal concerned to the effect that the particulars of the land mentioned in the list are correct, and that the admission to the land is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules.
(4) The Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division, shall, on receipt of the documents, referred to in sub-rule (3) scrutinize the decision, taken by the Committee and if he is satisfied that the decision of the Committee is in accordance with the Act and rules made thereunder, he shall record his approval on the list in Z.A Form 57-B and return the papers to the Land Management Committee within a week of its receipt from the Chairman with the direction that the possession may be delivered to the lessees and report of the mutation be submitted to Supervisor Kanungo by the Lekhpal immediately after delivery of possession.
(5) If the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division finds that the whole or part of the decision taken by the Committee is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules, he shall record his disapproval on the list in Z.A Form 57-B and return the papers to the Chairman.”
13. I am sure if Sub-Divisional Officer, Handia had taken pains to carefully read the documents referred to in sub-rule (1) —they were not sent at all and he was profoundly unaware of—he should have recorded his disapproval on Z.A Form 57-B on 30.6.1992 It greatly disconcerts that Additional Commissioner Shri Brijendra Singh did not notice brutal facts in a compelling perspective. He contends himself with superficial observations as below:
14. He did not see everything, and did not see precisely. It is the detail that has a meaning and the judge has to find that meaning. The reference order is not showing that revisional judge wanted to understand and uncover, layer be layer, the muscle under the skin and the bone under the muscle. He reduces, in torturing brevity, all the tension, subtleties and complexities for simple contemplation.
15. The reference is misconceived and is hereby rejected. The candid order of trial judge is affirmed. Order accordingly.
16. Reference Rejected.