Board of Revenue Cannot Overturn Concurrent Findings Based on Factual Misconceptions Regarding Principles of Natural Justice

The petitioner, the recorded bhumiswami of the subject land, sought correction of the revenue map (Aks Shajra) to align with Khasra and Khatoni entries.

Following an inquiry by the Tahsildar and Superintendent of Land Records, the Additional Collector, Datia, ordered the map correction on 28.10.2010.

This order was upheld by the Additional Commissioner on 24.01.2011.

However, the Board of Revenue, exercising revisional jurisdiction, set aside these concurrent findings on 26.04.2012, alleging that Respondents No. 3 to 5 were not served notice or heard.

The petitioner challenged this revisional order under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

1. Whether the Board of Revenue’s finding regarding the lack of notice and opportunity of hearing to the respondents was factually sustainable.

2. Whether the Board of Revenue exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code by interfering with concurrent findings of fact without identifying jurisdictional errors.

Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which defines revisional jurisdiction as supervisory in nature, intended only to correct jurisdictional errors or patent illegalities rather than to re-appreciate facts.

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the requirement of notice and hearing, while noting that a factual misapprehension of these principles by a lower tribunal constitutes a "patent illegality".

The High Court found that the Board of Revenue's order was based on an "erroneous assumption of fact".

The record established that the Additional Collector had indeed served notices to Respondents No. 3 to 5, who had subsequently appeared through counsel via a Vakalatnama.

Consequently, the Board’s conclusion that the principles of natural justice were violated was contrary to the material on record.

The Court noted that the Board failed to address the merits of the technical inquiry reports by the Tahsildar and Superintendent of Land Records, which confirmed that the map required correction to match the undisputed area recorded in the Khasra.

Since no jurisdictional error or patent infirmity was present in the lower authorities' orders, the Board’s interference was unjustified.

The Writ Petition was allowed, the Board of Revenue's order dated 26.04.2012 was quashed, and the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner were restored.

The Court directed the respondents to carry out the revenue map corrections within eight weeks.