Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayan Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2023
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 6308 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
CHATTER SINGH PATEL S/O LATE SHRI SHOBHARAM
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MAJDURI GRAM MOTHI TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ADITYA SHARMA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR SAGAR DISTT-SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) DISTT-
SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MIHARWAN SINGH S/O RAJARAM SINGH R/O
GRAM MOTHI, TAHSIL AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RAMAVTAR SINGH S/O ROOP SINGH CHOUHAN
R/O GRAM MOTHI, TAHSIL AND DISTT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. KAPOORCHANDRA S/O JAY CHANDRA (PHOUT)
OCCUPATION: THR. BHAGCHAND JAIN @
BABLOO S/O KAPOORCHANDRA JAIN R/O
GOLAKUAN, LAXMIPURA WARD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. RISHABH KUMAR JAIN S/O JAY CHANDRA R/O
GOLAKUAN, LAXMIPURA WARD (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
PRADESH)
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/28/2023
1:08:03 PM
2
8. MANOJ S/O BABLOO JAIN R/O GOLAKUAN,
LAXMIPURA WARD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR PATEL - ADVOCATE )
WRIT PETITION No. 6309 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
1. NARAYAN PATEL S/O KHUMAN PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR GRAM
MOTHI TEHSIL AND DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. KAMODI S/O KHUMAN PATEL, AGED ABOUT 42
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: LABOUR GRAM MOTHI
TEHSIL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ADITYA SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR SAGAR SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE
DEPARTMENT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MEHARBAN SINGH S/O RAJARAM SINGH GRAM
MOTHI TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. RAMAVTAR SINGH S/O RUP SINGH CHOUHAN
GRAM MOTHI TAHSIL AND DISTRICT SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MANOJ S/O BABLU J A I N LAXMIPURA WARD
SAGAR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. NEERAJ S/O RISHABH JAIN LAXMIPURA WARD
SAGAR TEHSIL AND DISTRICT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/28/2023
1:08:03 PM
3
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR PATEL - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS
NO.4 AND 5)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This order shall govern the disposal of WP No.6309/2018 as well.
For the sake of convenience, facts as narrated in WP No.6308/2018 are
taken note of.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India assailing the order dated 26.02.2018 in Case No.72/B-
121/2016-2017 passed by the Collector Sagar (Annexure P/4) and also
reversing the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 19.07.2017
(Annexure P/3) in Case No.892 B/121/2014-2015.
2. The facts as elaborated in the petition reflect that the petitioner is
owner of the land situated at Khasra No.774/3, 774/5, 774/6 and 776 ad-
measuring area 1.07 decimal. As the petitioner was in need of funds for the
purposes of marriage of his daughter, the petitioner entered into transaction
dated 03.05.2002 by which the land in question was handed over to one Mr.
Kapoor Chandra (father of respondent No.6). As a security towards the loan
obtained for the marriage of daughter of the petitioner, the land was kept with
Mr. Kapoor Chandra as a security and upon repayment of the loan, the land
was to be returned back to the present petitioner. The petitioner filed an
application under Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi
Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi
Kuchakro Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to
as "Adhiniyam, 1976"). The said application filed by the petitioner was initially
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/28/2023
1:08:03 PM
dismissed by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar dated 28.07.2015. The
said order dated 28.07.2015 was assailed by the present petitioner by filing an
appeal before the Collector, Sagar. The Collector, Sagar vide order dated
27.09.2016 set aside the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar dated
28.07.2015 and remitted back the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer to
conduct an inquiry on the certain issues which were detailed in operative
paragraph of order dated 27.09.2016.
3. Pursuant to the order passed by the Collector, Sagar, Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sagar again proceeded to decide the application moved by the
petitioner and vide order dated 19.07.2017 contained in Annexure P/3, allowed
the same and declared the sale-deed dated 03.05.2002 to be null and void.
Assailing the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 19.07.2017, respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Sagar. The Collector
Sagar, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2018 contained in Annexure P/4 has
allowed the appeal. Thus, assailing the order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P/4)
passed by the Collector Sagar, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Sub-Divisional
Officer passed a well reasoned and speaking order in consonance with the
provisions of Adhiniyam, 1976. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar came to a
conclusion that the transaction in question is within the category of prohibited
transaction of loan as stipulated in Section 2 (f) of Adhiniyam, 1976 and
accordingly came to a conclusion that the petitioner was subjected to
exploitation at the behest of Mr. Kapoor Chandra, therefore, set-aside the sale-
deed dated 03.05.2002. Counsel further contends that a well reasoned order
passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar could not have been interfered with by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/28/2023
1:08:03 PM
the Collector Sagar while passing the impugned order inasmuch as, the Sub-
Divisional Officer upon conduct of due inquiry, came to a conclusion that the
said transaction was a prohibited transaction within the meaning of Adhiniyam,
1976 and accordingly, declared the sale-deed to be null and void. Counsel for
the petitioner also submits that the testimony of witnesses, who deposed before
the Sub-Divisional Officer that towards the security of loan only, the land was
handed over to Mr. Kapoor Chandra, remained unrebutted and therefore, the
Collector fell in error while reversing the findings arrived at by the Sub-
Divisional Officer vide order dated 19.07.2017. Thus, counsel submits that the
impugned order deserves to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 and 5 submits
that firstly this application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable having
barred by limitation. It is contended by the counsel that said application was
moved beyond a period of 6 years of limitation as provided under Section 15 of
Adhiniyam, 1976. It is further contended by the counsel that the application was
not submitted by the petitioner in prescribed format in terms of Rule 3 of the
rules framed under Adhiniyam, 1976. A perusal of Ikrarnama dated 03.05.2002
reflects that the same was not signed by Mr. Kapoor Chandra and therefore, the
same had no binding effect. Moreover, on 03.05.2002 itself, a sale-deed was
executed by the present petitioner and the land in question was sold to Mr.
Kapoor Chandra without any demur or protest. The counsel also submits that a
suit and subsequent appeal filed by the petitioner regarding same property has
been dismissed.
6. The entire sale-deed does not reflect that the same was prohibited
transaction within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of said Adhiniyam, 1976 as the
sale-deed did not contain any clause as regards the reversion of land on re-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/28/2023
1:08:03 PM
payment of any loan. It is contended by the counsel for the respondents that the
sale-deed has no whisper about extension of any loan by Mr. Kapoor Chandra
to the petitioner and therefore, the application under Adhiniyam, 1976 was
moved with an oblique motive just in order to harass the respondent Nos.4 and
5 who are subsequent purchasers of the property in question. It is also
contended by the counsel that the limitation as provided under Section 15 of the
said Adhiniyam, 1976 ought to have been taken into consideration by the Sub-
Divisional Officer. In support of his contention counsel for the respondents has
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Basant Kumar
Jain vs. Sub-Divisional officer, Patan and Others reported in 2003
Revenue Nirnay 66. Thus, counsel submits that no interference is warranted
and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the
record.
8. To deal with the rival contention, first it is appropriate to peruse the
application filed by the petitioner before the authorities claiming benefit of
Adhiniyam, 1976 which is reproduced herein:-
"1- ;g fd] vkosnd ds LokfeRo o gDd dh Hkwfe ekstk eksBh i-g-ua- 31 rg- o ftyk lkxj esa
[k-ua- [email protected]] [email protected]] [email protected]] 776 esa 1-07 fM- Hkwfe fLFkr gSA
2- ;g fd] vkonsd dks cPph dh 'kknh ds fy, :i;ksa dh vko';drk Fkh ftl dkj.k ls
vkosnd us viuh mijksDr Hkwfe vukosnd ds ikl bl 'krZ ij jgu j[kh Fkh fd tc Hkh rqe yh
xbZ jkf'k okfil dj nksxsa ge vukosnd vkidh mijksDr jgu j[kh Hkwfe vkidks okfil dj nsxsA
ysfdu mijksDr Hkwfe ij vukosnd }kjk "kM;a= jpdj tcju dCtk dj fy;k x;k vkSj
vukosnd us mijksDr Hkwfe vius uke ls ntZ djk yhA
3- ;g fd] vkosnd us vukosnd dh yh xbZ laiw.kZ jkf'k 50 gtkj :i;s dh e; C;kt lfgr
yxHkx 1]25][email protected]& :i;s ns pqdk gS ftlesa [email protected]& :i;s vkosnd dks jftLVzh [kpZ Lo;a
yxk Fkk vkSj bl 'krZ ij jftLVzh bqbZ Fkh tSls gh gekjs }kjk nh xbZ jkf'k okfil dj nksxs ge
mDr Hkwfe dh okfilh jftLVzh dj nsxs ysfdu vukosnd ls vkosnd us dbZ ckj dgk fd gekjh
Hkwfe dh okfil jftLVzh gekjs uke ls dj nks vukosnd vkosnd dh Hkwfe okfil ugha dj jgk gS
vkSj /kedh nsdj izrkfM+r o ijs'kku dj jgk gSA rHkk fdlh nwljs O;fDr dks fodz; djus dk
iz;kl dj jgk gSA
4- ;g fd] vkosnd dh mijksDr Hkwfe esa jgokl gsrq edku cuk gqvk gS ftlesa mldk iwjk
ifjokj fuokl djrk gS mijksDr Hkwfe esa dqvk [kqnk gqvk gS ftlls og viuh d`f"k dk;Z dj
ifjokj dk Hkj.k iks"k.k djrk gSA blds vykok vkosnd ds ikl vU; Hkwfe jgokl ,oa Hkj.k
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/28/2023
1:08:03 PM
iks"k.k gsrq ugha gSA vxj vukosnd vkonsd dh Hkwfe fdlh nwljs O;fDr dks jftLVzh dj nsxk rks
vkosnd vius ifjokj lfgr os?kj gks tk;sxk rFkk nj&nj HkVdrk jgsxk mldk ifjokj Hkw[ kk ej
tk;sxkA
vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gS fd vkosnd dh mijksDr izkFkZuk dks
Lohdkj djrs gq, vukosnd ls vkosnd dh Hkwfe dh vfr 'kh?kz okilh
jftLVzh vkosnd ds uke ls djk;s tkus dh d`ik djs rFkk vukosnd ds fo:}
dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA**
9. A perusal of the same reflects that firstly the said application was not
filed in terms of the format which is provided in Rule 3 of Madhya Pradesh
Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene
Walon Ke Bhumi Handapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha
Mukti Niym, 1978 framed under the Adhiniyam, 1976 and is required to be
submitted in Form-I which is reproduced herein:-
FORM I
(See Rule 3)
Application under section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Samak Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke
Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi
Kucharkron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (No.3 of 1977)
1. Name of applicant.
2. Residential address.
3. Land held by applicant in the State.
(a) Irrigated (Khasra No.............Village.........Patwari Circle
No.......Tahsil............District..............Hectares.
(b) Unirrigated............Khasra No......... Village.................
Patwari Circile No...............Tahsil............District........
Hectares..............Total.................Hectares.
4. Date of prohibited transaction.
5. Principal money.
6. Date of securing interest in land.
7. Mode of securing interest in land.........................whereby-
(a) agreement to sell land with or without delivery of
Signature Not Verified
possession.
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/28/2023
1:08:03 PM
(b) Outright sale of land within or without delivery of
possession accompained by separate agreement to result it.
(c) Outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession
with a district or an understanding that the sale shall not be acted upon if
the loan is repaid.
(d) Outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession
with condition incorporated in the saled eed deed to result it
on repayment of laon.
(e) transaction in any modes other than (a) to (d).
8. Purpose of loan.
9. Market value of land at the time of transaction.
10. Whether the consideration shown in the document was paid in whole or in part,
privately or before sub-Registrar.
11. Whether possession of the land was actually delivered to the lender of money as per
recitals in the said document. If not, when and in what manner the lender of money obtained
possession of the land.
12. Rate of interest agreed upon.
13. Payment, if any, made by the holder of agricultural land to the lender of money towards
the loan.
Applicant.
Place...........
Dated..........
10. If the application which was filed by the petitioner is perused, the
same would reveal that there were no averments as regards the date of
prohibited transaction, consideration towards land and no detailed mode of
securing interests. Thus, undisputedly, the application was not submitted by
the petitioner in the said format. However, this aspect has not been gone into by
the authorities while passing the order impugned.
11 . The Collector, Sagar while passing the impugned order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/28/2023
1:08:03 PM
26.02.2018, examined the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 19.07.2017.
The Collector also observed that earlier the matter was remitted back to the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar by the Collector, Sagar vide order dated
27.09.2016 to pass an order afresh while conducting an inquiry regarding the
facts pertaining to electricity connection, "well" on the property in question and
also to inquire as to whether there was a transaction of loan between the present
petitioner and the respondents. Thus, the inquiry was required to be conducted
on these aspect of the matter. The Sub-Divisional Officer while placing reliance
on the electricity bills produced by the present petitioner, concluded that the
present petitioner is in possession of the property which is evident from the
electricity bills. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar also considered the
Ikrarnama dated 03.05.2002 and concluded that the same is a transaction of
loan.
12. In the present case, the most important aspect of the matter is that a
sale-deed was executed by the present petitioner in favour of one Mr. Kapoor
Chandra on 03.05.2002 and Ikrarnama is also dated 03.05.2002 which
according to the petitioner denotes a transaction of loan and the said Ikrarnama
has been specifically denied by the private respondents on the ground that the
said Ikrarnama does not bear the signature of Mr. Kapoor Chandra and it is
only signed by the present petitioner. Thus, if the order of Sub-Divisional
Officer dated 19.07.2017 contained in Annexure P/3 is perused, the Sub-
Divisional Officer nowhere considered the sale-deed dated 03.05.2002. The
sale-deed dated 03.05.2002, contains no averments regarding any loan
transaction or handing over the property to Mr. Kapoor Chandra as security of
the loan. A sale-deed dated 03.05.2002 which has been produced on record
Signature Not Verified
reflects that the same was pure transaction of sale and in lieu of the land, the
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/28/2023
1:08:03 PM
consideration was paid to the present petitioner. Undisputedly, Ikrarnama dated
03.05.2002 does not contain signature of Mr. Kapoor Chandra but the same is
signed by the present petitioner and two other witnesses.
13. In the entire application which was submitted by the present
petitioner seeking protection under Adhiniyam, 1976 there was no averments
regarding the sale-deed dated 03.05.2002 or even the Ikrarnama dated
03.05.2002. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar without appreciating that there
was a sale-deed dated 03.05.2002, while mis-interpretating the Ikrarnama dated
03.05.2002 concluded that the same was a prohibited transaction within the
meaning of Adhiniyam, 1976. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar was required
to appreciate the said Ikrarnama even if assuming the same was executed
between the parties, the said Ikrarnama dated 03.052022 reflcets that it was
contained therein that after execution of sale-deed dated 03.05.2002, the land
was handed over to the present petitioner on "Adhiya-Batiya" for a period of
two years. The entire Ikrarnama dated 03.05.2002 nowhere even referes to any
loan transaction. Thus, without there being any basis, the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sagar arrived at the misconcieved finding in operative paragraph of his
order dated 19.07.2017.
14. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar was then
screutinzed by the Collector Sagar and the Collector Sagar while observing that
the present petitioner in his application under Section 5 submitted that just in
order to solemnize the marriage of his daughter, as a security, the present
petitioner handed over the land to Mr. Kapoor Chandra towards a loan. The
Collector Sagar also considered that the bills which were prodeced by the
present petitioner, did not contain the details of any property, therefore, it could
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/28/2023
1:08:03 PM
not have been said that the electricity meter pertains to the property in question.
15. It is undisputed that Mr. Kapoor Chandra has further alinated the
property and the respondents No.4 and 5 are subsequent purchaser of the
property. As the sale-deed dated 03.05.2002 has not been even interfered with
in a suit filed by the present petitioner and the judgment and decree pased by
the Civil Court has also not been interefered with by the Lower Appellate Court,
this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the order impugned
passed by the Collector dated 26.02.2018. The Collector has rightly concluded
that it was not a transaction of loan so as to bring the same within the ambit of
the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1976.
16. Accordingly, the present petition and connected petition i.e.
W.P.No.6309/2018 stand dismised. No order as to costs.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 2/28/2023
1:08:03 PM
