Revenue Officer Discharging Quasi-Judicial Functions Protected Under Judges' Protection Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Court held that actions taken by a Revenue Officer while adjudicating rights under statutory authority are protected, and mere errors in such decisions cannot form the basis of disciplinary proceedings in the absence of mala fides or extraneous considerations.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a Revenue Officer discharging quasi-judicial functions under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, is entitled to statutory protection under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, and that errors in mutation or auction proceedings, even if legally infirm, cannot be treated as administrative misconduct in the absence of allegations of mala fides or extraneous influence.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging a charge sheet issued against a Deputy Collector for actions taken while serving as Tehsildar in relation to land auction proceedings and mutation orders, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed: “Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 affords absolute protection to any person who is empowered by law to give a definitive judgment in any legal proceeding, … Because the petitioner was presiding over formal revenue cases and adjudicating civil rights pertaining to land revenue and title mutation under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, his actions squarely fall within the protective ambit of the Act”.
The Court further held, “even if the mutation order was erroneous or the auction procedure suffered from legal infirmities, such errors of judgment made during the lawful exercise of statutory powers cannot be categorised as administrative misconduct”.
Advocate Amalpushp Shroti appeared for the petitioner; Sudeep Bhargav, Deputy Advocate General, appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioner, a Deputy Collector, was served with a charge sheet in 2019 for actions taken in 2013 while functioning as Tehsildar, Ratlam. The charges related to alleged irregularities in the auction of attached land and mutation of property on the basis of a will.
It was alleged that the petitioner had violated High Court directions during auction proceedings and had improperly allowed mutation of land without the requisite permissions and documentary verification.
The petitioner challenged the charge sheet on grounds that the actions were taken in discharge of quasi-judicial functions, were protected under the Judges (Protection) Act, and that the proceedings were vitiated by delay and vagueness.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the nature of functions performed by the petitioner and held that both the auction proceedings and mutation orders arose from statutory duties vested in a Tehsildar under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
It observed that “the process of mutation, the appreciation of a Will, and the evaluation of local inquiry reports… are classic adjudicatory functions of a Revenue Court,” thereby placing such actions within the domain of quasi-judicial exercise.
Relying on Section 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, the Court held that any person empowered to give a definitive judgment in legal proceedings is granted protection against legal action for acts done in the course of such functions.
The Court reiterated that the petitioner, while presiding over revenue cases involving adjudication of civil rights, was acting within this protected sphere. It held that “his actions squarely fall within the protective ambit of the Act,” and therefore could not be subjected to disciplinary proceedings merely based on alleged errors in decision-making.
The Court further relied on precedent to emphasise that disciplinary action against officers exercising quasi-judicial powers is permissible only in cases involving misconduct such as mala fide intent, recklessness, or extraneous considerations.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan (1993), the Court noted that such action is justified only where conduct reflects a lack of integrity, undue favour, or corrupt motive, and not for mere errors of judgment.
On the facts, the Court found that the charges did not allege any such misconduct. It observed that “the charges… were performed strictly in his capacity as a quasi-judicial officer,” and did not disclose any element of mala fides or gratification.
The Court also relied on the Apex Court’s decision in Amresh Shrivastava v. State of M.P. (2025), holding that a wrongful order passed in good faith without extraneous influence cannot justify disciplinary proceedings.
Additionally, the Court examined the delay in initiating proceedings and found that the charge sheet issued after six years was unexplained and prejudicial.
It further held that the charges were vague and unspecific, particularly noting that allegations of violation of High Court orders did not identify which orders were allegedly breached. Relying on Govt. of A.P. v. A. Venkata Raidu (2007), the Court reiterated that vague charges lacking material particulars cannot sustain disciplinary action.
The Court ultimately held that “this is a glaring case where the charges are prima facie absurd, legally vague, delayed, and targeted at a quasi-judicial function without any specific imputation of malafide intent or gratification,” warranting interference under Article 226.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned charge sheet along with all consequential proceedings.
It further directed the authorities to conduct a review of the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Joint Collector, uninfluenced by the quashed proceedings.
Cause Title: Virendra Kumar Katare v. General Administration Department & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:12617)
Appearances
Petitioner: Amalpushp Shroti; Advocates Manu Maheshwari, Tejas Vyas
Respondents: Sudeep Bhargav, Deputy Advocate General