Madhya Pradesh High Court
Karulal And Anr. vs Ambalal And 4 Ors. on 30 October, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 2983 of 2010
BETWEEN:-
KARULAL S/O BHUWANILAL SONI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS GAUTAM NAGAR,
KALA KHET, MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAJESH KUMAR S/O KARULAL SONI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURIST, GAUTAM NAGAR,
KALA KHET, MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(NONE PRESENT FOR THE PETITIONERS.)
AND
AMBALAL S/O RAMSINGHRAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE BHATREWAS, TEHSIL &
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
MANKUNWAR D/O RAMSINGH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O VILLAGE BHATREWAS, TEHSIL &
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SAGARBAI W/O RAMSINGHRAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
3. OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O VILLAGE BHATREWAS, TEHSIL &
DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
COLLECTOR MANDSAUR, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
4.
PRADESH)
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) SUB-DIVISION, MANDSAUR
5.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 31-10-2023
18:51:01
-2-
(SHRI KRATIK MANDLOI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.
SHRI VINAY GANDHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1, 2
& 3.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petition being
aggrieved by order dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Collector, District
Mandsaur whereby the appeal filed by the private respondents have
been allowed and matter has been remanded back to the Sub-Divisional
Officer to decide afresh under Section 6 of The Madhya Pradesh Samaj
Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene walon
Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti
Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam, 1976").
Facts of the case in short are as under:
02. The respondents No.1 to 3 were the owner of the land
bearing survey No.621, 622, 623, 624, 625/1, 637 ad-measuring area
1.103 hectare which they sold to petitioner No.1 and land bearing survey
No.323, 700/1, 711, 712, 323 ad-measuring area 1.401 hectare which
they sold to petitioner No.2 by registered sale-deed dated 29.05.1997.
03. The respondents approached the SDO which is the
competent authority under the Adhiniyam, 1976 seeking that sale-deed
be declared void as both were executed for security purpose at the time
of taking loan from the present petitioners. The present petitioners
appeared and filed a reply that lands were sold and the sale
consideration was paid. It is further submitted that two civil suits i.e.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 31-10-2023
18:51:01
Civil Suit No.99-A/2003 and Civil Suit No.98-A/2003 were filed before
the Civil Judge Class-II, Mandsaur in which a compromise was arrived
at and civil suits were finally disposed off, thereafter, these proceedings
are not maintainable and misuse of process of law. The SDO considered
and examined the judgments passed in both the civil suits and held that
this matter has not been filed within 6 years after the Adhiniyam, 1976
came into force, therefore, this application is barred by limitation
accordingly vide order dated 15.05.2008, SDO has dismissed the
application.
04. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appeal was
filed before the Collector. The Collector opined that the SDO ought to
have conducted an enquiry under Section 6 as the jurisdiction of civil
Court is barred under Section 14, therefore, such decrees are not binding
on the authority under the Adhiniyam, 1976, accordingly set aside the
order dated 15.05.2008 and remanded the matter back, hence, this
petition before this Court.
05. The aforesaid dates in respect of execution of sale-deed are
not in dispute meaning thereby these sale-deeds were executed before
the Adhiniyam, 1976 came into force w.e.f. 22.01.1977. Section 15(2) of
Adhiniyam, 1976 takes care of any transaction that took place before
this act came into force and for which the limitation of 6 years is
provided. The present applications were filed after 10 years from the
date of execution of the sale-deed. Even otherwise, sale-deeds in
question, two civil suits were filed in which the compromise was arrived
at between the petitioners and respondents and they were disposed off.
In those suits, the respondents admitted that they sold the lands to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 31-10-2023
18:51:01
petitioners and it was not in respect of any security or mortgage and on
the basis of compromise, Civil Courts were disposed of both the suits.
06. If there was any issue in respect of disposal of that suit, the
respondents could have approached the Appellate Court / High Court to
challenge that compromise decree but the authorities under the
Adhiniyam, 1976 cannot comment on the judgment passed by the Court.
The bar of Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 would not apply
retrospectively as limitation to challenge the sale-deed had been expired.
Once rightly or wrongly the proceedings of civil suit has come to an
end, same cannot be reopened under the Adhiniyam, 1976 when
admittedly within limitation of 6 years the application was not filed
under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 before the Sub-Divisional
Officer, therefore, the remand will not serve any purpose.
07. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside.
Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed off.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 31-10-2023
18:51:01
