Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajdhar Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV
ON THE 27 OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.6392 OF 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJDHAR SINGH YADAV, S/O AMOL
SINGH,
2. HARVEER SINGH YADAV, S/O RAJDHAR
SINGH,
3. SHISHUPAL YADAV, S/O RAJDHAR SINGH,
RESIDENTS OF - AAMKHEDA, SUKHA
ARON, DISTRICT GUNA, MADHYA
PRADESH.
........PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI S.S. RAWAT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA,VALLABH
BHAVAN, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH.
2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH).
3. SHRI MISHRI LAL YADAV, S/O
KERISINGH, CASTE YADAV, RESIDENT OF
- VILLAGE AAMKHEDA SUKHA, ARON,
DISTRICT GUNA, MADHYA PRADESH.
........RESPONDENTS
(SHRI G.K. AGRAWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 2/29/2024
1:37:00 PM
2
NO.1 AND 2/STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 25th of January, 2024
Pronounced on : 27 of February, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar-
IV pronounced the following::
ORDER
By this Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 19/11/2019
passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case
No.477/Appeal/2019-20 (Rajdhar Singh Yadav and others Vs. Collector,
District Guna and another) and order dated 15/10/2019 passed by
Collector, District Guna in case No.20/Suo Motu Revision/2012-13
(State of M.P. Vs. Rajdhar Singh).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Survey No.236/1 area 2.000 hectares situated at village
Aamkheda Sukha, Tehsil Aron, District Guna was the Government
property and respondent no.3-Mishrilal Yadav was granted patta of
aforesaid land vide order dated 25/9/1984 passed in Case
No.115A/19/82-83. After about 10 years of his continuous possession,
he executed two sale-deeds dated 10/2/1994 and 30/5/1994 of the said
land in favour of the petitioners, after taking due consideration. Without
previous permission of the concerned Collector, these sale-deeds were
made in contravention of Provision of Section 165(7-b) of MPLRC.
Collector took suo-moto cognizance in the matter on the report
submitted by SDO and sale-deeds being in contravention of Provision
of MPLRC, ignoring the registered sale-deeds in favour of the
petitioners, recorded the property in favour of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that land in
question was recorded in the name of respondent no.3-Mishrilal Yadav,
there was nothing on record that land was given to him on lease and
there was no prohibition on sale mentioned in revenue record. Mishrilal,
after taking due consideration, executed aforesaid sale-deeds in favour
of the petitioners and petitioners from the date of execution of the sale-
deeds were in cultivating possession of the land. On the basis of
registered sale-deeds in favour of the petitioners, names of the
petitioners were also mutated in the Revenue Record. After about 19
years, respondent no.3 took an objection, however, the matter was
compromised for an amount of Rs.7,000/- vide order dated 11/6/2001
passed by the concerned SDO in appeal. After passing of long time,
Collector took cognizance suo-moto and ignoring the sale-deeds in
favour of the petitioners, recorded the land in favour of the State. Order
of Collector is wholly erroneous and without jurisdiction. The appeal
filed there-against by the petitioners, has been dismissed without any
ground by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior
ignoring the fact that the Collector took cognizance after a long period,
while Collector may take suo-moto cognizance within 180 days.
Petitioners relied upon the judgment of Full Bench in the case of
Ranveer Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2010 (III)
MPJR (FB) 347 and submitted that sale came to notice of Revenue
Officials in the year 2001 when Tehsildar rejected the mutation order.
5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted
that admittedly the land was of State and respondent no.3-Mishrilal
Yadav was granted lease for cultivation, but he sold the property
without previous permission of Collector concerned, which was in
complete violation of Provisions of MPLRC. Government Advocate
further submits that on the recommendation dated 3/4/2013 by SDO,
Collector took suo motu cognizance on 1/5/2013, i.e. within one month.
Thus, Full Bench judgment would not come to help of petitioners.
6. It appears that on the complaint made by respondent no.3-
Mishrilal Yadav, report was called from SDO concerned and on the
basis of report dated 3/4/2013, matter was registered and show-cause
notice was issued to the petitioners. Collector found that land was a
State property and respondent no.3-Mishrilal Yadav was granted lease
by Tehsildar. Ownership right was granted to him, but he had to sell the
land with the permission of Collector. Despite that, respondent no.3-
Mishrilal Yadav executed registered sale-deeds dated 10/2/1994 &
30/5/1994, in favour of the petitioners without permission of the
Collector and their names were also mutated in the revenue records.
Collector, finding the registered sale-deeds in favour of the petitioners
in contravention of mandatory provisions of MPLRC, recorded the land
in favour of the State.
7. Against the order of Collector, petitioners preferred an appeal
before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, which came to be
heard and decided by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division,
Gwalior, who vide order dated 19/11/2019 dismissed the appeal for
want of jurisdiction as per amended provisions of Section 50(2) of
MPLRC. Both the aforesaid orders, i.e. order dated 15/10/2019 passed
by the Collector, District Guna and order dated 19/11/2019 passed by
the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior are impugned
in this petition.
8. Sections 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the MP Land Revenue Code read
as under:-
''Section 158(3). Every person-
(i) who is holding land in Bhumiswami right by
virtue of a lease granted to him by the State
Government or the Collector or the Allotment
Officer on or before the commencement of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code
(Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of such
commencement, and
(ii) to whom land is allotted in Bhumiswami
right by the State Government or the Collector
or the Allotment Officer after the
commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 from
the date of such allotment, shall be deemed to
be a Bhumiswami in respect of such land and
shall be subject to all the rights and liabilities
conferred and imposed upon a Bhumiswami by
or under this Code:
Provided that no such person shall transfer
such land within a period of ten years from the
date of lease or allotment.''
''165(7-b). Notwithstanding anything contained
in sub-section (1), a person who hold land from
the State Government or whom right to occupy
land is granted by the State Government or the
Collector as a Government lessee and who
subsequently becomes Bhumiswami of such
land, shall not transfer such land without the
permission of a Revenue Officer, not below the
rank of a Collector, given for reasons to be
recorded in writing."
9. From the plain reading of this Section, it is clear that the
Government lessee cannot dispose of the land within 10 years of the
grant of lease and thereafter, the land can be alienated only after
obtaining due permission from the Collector.
10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mulayam Singh
and Another Vs. Budhuwa Chamar and others, reported in 2002 RN
250 has held as under:-
''5. It is not in dispute that no permission from
the Collector was obtained and the sale was
made without the permission of Collector. The
respondent cannot transfer his land even
though he is declared Bhumiswami, without
the permission of the Collector. Transfer was
made without such permission, so the
appellants will not get any legal rights. In the
circumstances, the Additional Collector has
rightly held that the sale was in contravention
of the provisions of Section 165(7-B) of the
Code and is void. Mutation effected on the
basis of sale was set aside and the land was
directed to be recorded in the name of the
respondent No.1."
11. This Court in the case of Mandu and another Vs. State of M.P.
and others, reported in 2015 (3) MPLJ 229 has held as under:-
''9.These findings when tested on the anvil of
the provisions contained under Section 165 (7-
a) as it existed when the transaction were
effected wherein prior permission was a
mandatory precondition and no prior
permission having been sought even if the
holding is beyond ten years, the decision
arrived at by the Collector that the sale was a
nullity ought not to have been interfered with."
12. In view of Section 158(3) of the MP Land Revenue Code, a
''Patta'' is granted to a landless person for his survival, therefore, he is
governed by the mandatory provisions of Section 165 (7-b) of the MP
Land Revenue Code. The grant of ''Patta"' is not by way of right, but it
is by way of assistance by the Government, so that the landless persons
who have no source of income, can earn their livelihood by cultivating
the land. Therefore, the lessee is under obligation to fulfill the liabilities
of lessee and since the Government ''Patta'' is granted for his livelihood,
therefore, sale of the same without permission of the Collector has been
prohibited under Section 165 (7-b) of the MP land Revenue Code.
13. Thus, where the statutory prohibition has been created thereby
restraining sale of the Government land, then it has to be followed in its
strict sense because the said provision has been made in order to protect
the poor and innocent landless persons from the clutches of the
unscrupulous persons.
14. In view of the discussion made herein above, I do not find any
illegality or irregularity, otherwise in the impugned order passed by the
Collector and the same is hereby affirmed. Since the impugned order of
the Collector has been affirmed, therefore, no interference is warranted
in the impugned orders. Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
15. Accordingly, Collector, District Guna is directed to immediately
take possession of the land in dispute, if not already taken. However,
Collector, District Guna shall submit the compliance report before the
Principal Registrar of this Court within a period of one month from
today.
16. Registry to send a copy of this order immediately to the Collector,
District Guna for necessary information and compliance.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV)
JUDGE
Arun*
