State ownership, void tenancy recognition, and revisional correction of jurisdictional error within a reasonable time.

Land acquisition law does not require the State to acquire property already owned by it, and compensation is not payable merely because such land was wrongly treated as liable to acquisition. Any claim by a private party depends on a lawful tenancy or other enforceable interest displacing the State's title. The text also explains that a Tehsildar cannot validly recognise a tenancy without the confirmation required by the statutory scheme, so such a settlement is void. Revisional power under Section 38 B may apply to earlier orders once the provision is in force, and a void jurisdictional order can be corrected within a reasonable time after it comes to notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State was bound to acquire and pay compensation for land already belonging to the Government; (ii) Whether the Tehsildar had jurisdiction to recognise the respondent as a tenant and whether the Board of Revenue validly exercised revisional power under Section 38 B after a long lapse of time.

Issue (i): Whether the State was bound to acquire and pay compensation for land already belonging to the Government.

Analysis: The land acquisition law does not contemplate acquisition of the Government's own interest in land. Where the State is already the owner, acquisition is unnecessary and compensation is not payable merely because the land was wrongly treated as requiring acquisition. The respondent's claim could succeed only if he had a lawful tenancy or other enforceable interest capable of displacing the State's title.

Conclusion: The State was not bound to acquire its own land, and no compensation was payable to the respondent on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tehsildar had jurisdiction to recognise the respondent as a tenant and whether the Board of Revenue validly exercised revisional power under Section 38 B after a long lapse of time.

Analysis: Under the statutory scheme, when a lease or settlement is left undisturbed by the Collector, the matter had to be referred for confirmation by the Board of Revenue. The Tehsildar's recognition of tenancy without such confirmation was without jurisdiction and non est. The revisional power under Section 38 B was held to be prospective in operation but applicable to earlier orders once the provision came into force, and its exercise had to be within a reasonable time. On the facts, the Board acted after the matter came to light and after due inquiry, so the delay was not unreasonable. The invalidity of a void order could be raised at any stage.

Conclusion: The Tehsildar's settlement was void, and the Board of Revenue validly exercised revisional jurisdiction; the High Court's interference was unwarranted.

Final Conclusion: The order restoring the Board of Revenue's decision stood, and the direction to acquire the land and pay compensation was set aside, leaving the Revenue's position successful.

Ratio Decidendi: A void and jurisdictionally unauthorised settlement confers no rights, and suo motu revisional power may be used to correct such illegality within a reasonable time once it comes to notice.

---