Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Radhey Shyam on 30 April, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 4005 of 2017
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
RADHEY SHYAM AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Shri M S Jadon, learned Govt. Advocate and Shri Sohit Mishra,
learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner/State.
Shri Yash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri S.D. Singh
Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 21/04/2025
Delivered on : 30/04/2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
comiing on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice
Milind Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred by the State being aggrieved by the order
dated 08.07.2015 passed by Member, Board of Revenue, Gwalior in
Revision No.1862/1/11, which was allowed and the order dated
07.07.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner affirming the
order passed by Collector dated 08.03.2010 in suo moto Revision were
set aside and directions were issued to Tehsildar to amend the entries,
as they were earlier.
2. Short facts leading to the controversy are that land bearing
survey No.1138 Min admeasuring 5 Bigha situated at Alapur, Joura
was allotted to one Gulab Beg, Son of Mohan by Tehsildar for the
purpose of Gardening but later on the said allotment was cancelled
vide order dated 02.03.1983 and again vide case No.7/82-83/A-6
Tehsildar passed an order dated 14.09.1983 for allotment of said
survey number as per Section 289 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959
to one Ramswaroop for same purpose.
3. Though the land was allotted for gardening purposes,
Ramswaroop instead of carrying out of any such activity, without
permission of the Collector sold said survey number to one Meera
Devi w/o Braj Mohan, Smt. Suman Devi w/o Vijay Kumar Vaishya
and Smt. Suman Goyal w/o Suresh Chandra Goyal and after the said
sale the names of the purchasers were mutated in the revenue records.
4. On 02.02.2009 one Palua s/o Man Singh Kori made a complaint
to the Collector that Ramswaroop, who was allotted the land for
gardening purpose, was initially residing there in a hut and was tilling
the land instead of doing gardening and later on, had sold the land and
the purchasers have got their names mutated in the Revenue Records
illegally in Khasra Samvat 2046 to 2050 without there being any order
and on the basis of said entry in the Revenue Records the purchasers
are trying to cut plots and construct a road and are threatening him to
vacate the possession over the said land, therefore, an enquiry be made
in the matter and the said illegal mutation be cancelled.
5. The matter was inquired into by the SDO, Joura, who vide letter
dated 26.06.2009 informed the Collector that though the survey
No.1138 admeasuring 05 Bigha was given for the purposes of
gardening, instead of the aforesaid activity the said survey number has
been sold to various persons and on the said date as per the Patwari
report, name of Zarin Siddiki w/o Akil Siddiki resident of Sanjay
Colony, Morena has been recorded over the land admeasuring 01
bigha 07 biswa, names of Rajesh Gupta s/o Radheshyam Gupta,
Sanjay Mishra s/o R.K. Mishra resident of Morena were recorded over
land admeasuring 18 Biswa, names of Vasudev s/o Lyhore Goud,
Ramveer s/o Pancham Singh Sikarwar, Anil Sharma s/o Ramcharan
Lal Sharma, all resident of Morena were recored over the land
admeasuring 01 bigha and 07 Biswa, name of Dinesh Goswami s/o
Purangiri resident of Jaoura Khurd, Shailendra Goud s/o Lyhore Lal
Goud resident of Joura were recorded over the land admeasuring 9050
Sq.ft. and name of Sharda Devi w/o Anil Kumar resident of Dak
Khana Road Joura was recorded over the land admeasuring 2200
Sq.ft. and name of Ramjilal s/o Ramlal Khatik resident of Gopalpura
has been recorded in the revenue records as Bhumiswamis.
6. It was further mentioned in the report that 05 bigha of patta land
has been illegally transferred to various individuals, therefore, the said
land is required to be restraind from further alienation and is required
to be declared as a government land. On the basis of said report, the
Collector initiated suo moto proceedings in revision and issued notice
on 01.08.2009 and after service of notice, the matter was finally heard
and decided vide order dated 08.03.2010 and while cancelling the
mutation of the purchasers directed that the land be recorded as
government land in the revenue records and also directed the SDO,
Revenue Joura to initiate criminal proceedings against the persons,
who had tried to grab the government land.
7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, two revisions
were preferred; one by Smt. Meera Devi w/o Braj Mohan, which was
registered as revision No.41/2009-10 and another by present
respondents No.1 to 4, which was registered revision No.42/2009-10.
Additional Commissioner while keeping intact the order of Collector
so far as it related to cancellation of mutation proceedings in favour of
the individuals and recording of the land in the name of government
directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to declaring Ramswaroop
to be the Bhumiswami and thereafter initiate action against the culprits.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present respondents No.1 to 4
preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue learned Board of
Revenue vide order dated 08.07.2015 allowed the revision in the light
of judgment of the full Bench of this Court in the matter of Ranvir
Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 1; holding suo
moto revision to be time barred and while setting aside the order
passed by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner directed
Tehsildar to amend the Revenue Records and mutate names of present
respondents No.1 to 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, State has
preferred this petition.
9. Learned counsel for the State has also argued that since no
permission was taken by the present respondent No.9 before
transferring or selling the survey No.1138, as provided under Section
165(7)(b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code from any Revenue Officer not
below the rank of Collector, the initial sale itself was bad in law,
therefore, further transfer of land in the hands of present respondents
No. 1 to 4 was of no consequence and on its basis mutation of their
names in the Reveneu Records was also illegal.
10. Learned counsel for the State while referring to para 36 of the
judgement of full Bench in the matter of Ranvir Singh (Supra) has
argued that for exercising suo moto powers of revision envisaged
under Section 50 of the Code, a period of 180 days is prescribed from
the date of knowledge of the illegality or impropriety of any order
passed or as to the irregularity of the proceedings of any revenue
officer subordinate to it, which in the present matter can be attributed
to the complaint dated 02.02.2009 made by one Palua s/o Man Singh
and the report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)
dated 26.06.2009, in which the complaint was found to be proved and,
therefore, matter was referred to the Collector, who vide order dated
01.08.2009 took cognizance and initiated suo moto revisional
proceedings. Thus, the said proceedings can very well be said to have
been initiated within a period of 180 days from the date of knowledge
by the Collector, therefore, the ground on which the learned Board of
Revenue had set aside the order of Collector and Additional
Commissioner is not sustainable.
11. It was further argued that learned Board of Revenue has not
taken into consideration the fact that the Tehsildar has passed the order
on 14.09.1993 granting patta in favour of Ramswaroop and no person
has given the information or had complained that after passing of the
order of the Tehsildar granting patta, the patta holder had sold the land
in question and it was only for the first time on 02.02.2009 on a
complaint made by one Palua son of Man Singh that the said fact was
brough to the knowledge of the Collector vide report of SDO and
thereafter cognizance was taken within 180 days, therefore, powers
exercised by the Collector of suo moto revision cannot be said to be
barred by limitation, therefore, bad in law.
12. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel has also placed
reliance in the matter of Badshah Barela (deleted) through LRs &
Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. passed in W.P. No.5788/2017 on
05.08.2021 and has argued that though the order of Tehsildar is dated
14.09.1983, whereby patta was granted to one Ramswaroop Kori, the
period of limitation would not start from the said date to over turn the
said order but would start running from the date of discovery of his
illegal act of alinating the property, which was the date on which the
complaint was made by one Palua, therefore, the order passed by the
Board of Revenue setting aside the orders passed by the Additional
Commissioner and Collector is not sustainable and, therefore, deserves
to be quashed.
13. On the other hand learned Senior Counsel Shri N.K. Gupta
alongwith Shri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3
has argued that admittedly the suo moto exercise of powers of revision
by the Collector was done after more than 15 years, which in the light
of the judgement of full bench of this Court in the matter of Ranveer
Singh (supra) was not sustainable. While referring to the judgment of
Apex Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs.
Rajkumar Brijender Singh reported in (2004)10 SCC 585; it was
argued that though suo moto powers can be exercised at any time but it
does not mean that there would be no time limit or it is in infinity,
rather such powers are required to be excercised within reasonable
time and unreasonable delay in exercise of the power would tend to
undo the things which have attained finality, thus, would not be
permissible.
14. It was further argued that after the land in question was given on
patta to Ramswaroop, his name was duly recorded in the revenue
records and thereafter, after sale of the land to present respondents
No.5 to 8, their names were also duly recorded in the revenue records
and later on, the lands were sold to present respondents No.1 to 4 and
their names were also duly recorded in the revenue records on the
basis of sale deeds and since the suo moto action under Section 50 of
the M.P. Land Revenue Code was not taken within a period of 180
days from the said transfers, the orders passed by the Collector and the
Additional Commissioner were rightly set aside by Board of Revenue,
thus, no interference in the said order is required.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
16. From the record the facts, which emerges are that the land
bearing survey No.1138 was allotted on patta to respondent No.9
Ramswaroop for the purpose of gardening vide order dated 14.09.1983
by Tehsildar in case No.7/82-83/A-6. The name of Ramswaroop was
recorded in the revenue records for the period Samvat 2036 to 2040.
Further, in the Khasra Samvat 2046 name of Smt. Meera Devi w/o
Braj Mohan, Smt. Suman Devi w/o Shiv Kumar Bansal both having
9/10 share admeasuring 04 Bigha 10 Biswa and Smt. Suman Goyal
w/o Suresh Chandra Goyal having 1/10 share i.e. 10 Biswa was found
to be recorded in column No.3, which continued till Samvat 2063 and
thereafter from Khasra Samvat 2065 the land was recorded in the
names of other persons, which goes to show that the patta land had
transferred hands without any permission, without it being used for the
purposes for which it was allotted.
17. The fact of the property being illegally transferred surfaced for
the first time when a complaint was made by one Palua on 02.02.2009,
upon which the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Joura conducted an
enquiry and vide report dated 26.06.2009, informed to the Collector
that land bearing survey No.1138 admeasuring 05 Bigha was earlier
given to one Gulab Beg, Son of Mohan under the provisions of 239 of
M.P. Land Revenue Code for developing a garden, which later on, was
cancelled by the Collector vide order dated 02.03.1983 and thereafter
the said survey number was given to the present respondent No.9 vide
order dated 14.09.1983 by Tehsildar, Joura in case No.7/82-83/A-6 for
the purposes of developing a garden but instead of using the land for
the purpose for which it was allotted, the land was sold to various
persons and since the government land was illegally transferred to
private persons, it was reported to the Collector that action be initiated
for stopping further sale and for declaring the said land to be
government land and on the basis of said report the Collector initiated
suo moto revision proceedings and issued notices on 01.08.2009, thus
the trigger point for initiating suo moto revisional powers can be said
to be either the complaint dated 02.02.2009 made by Palua or report
dated 26.06.2009 submitted by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) and
from the said dates the suo motu revisional power exercised by the
Collector was within a period of 180 days, as prescribed by the full
Bench of this Court in the matter of Renveer Singh (supra), thus, can
very well be said that the suo motu revisional powers exercised by the
Collector was well within limitation.
18. It would also be, profitable to quote Section 165(7)(b) of M.P.
Land Revenue Code, wherein it is provided that a person who holds
land from the State Government or a person who holds land in
bhumiswami rights under sub-section (3) of Section 158 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. The aforesaid provision
also makes it clear that any patta land given to a person who holds a
land from the State Government can only transfer such land with
permission of Revenue Officer not below rank of a Collector, but
admittedly at the time of transfer of the land to various purchasers, the
original patta holder i.e. present respondent No.9 Ramswaroop had not
sought any permission from the Revenue Officers/Collector, thus,
when the very initial sale was illegal, no right accrued to the
subsequent purchasers to get their names mutated in the Revenue
Records, therefore, this Court finds that the Collector had rightly held
that the sale executed in favour of respondents No.1 to 4 prior to that
in favour of respondent No.5 to 8 by respondent No.9 was illegal and
thus, had rightly set aside the sale deeds. Further the direction of
Collector sto record the land as a charnoi land and further to initiate
criminal proceedings against the persons, who had embazzelled/ mis-
appropriate the property cannot be faulted with. Since the very order
passed by the Collector was in accordance with law, it was rightly
upheld by the Additional Commissioner in revision. The order passed
in Board of Revenue, thus, being not sustainable, is hereby set aside.
19. The judgment as cited by the learned Senior counsel for the
respondent in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rajkumar
Brijender Singh (supra) being based on different facts is not
applicable to the facts of the present matter. Accordingly, the present
petition stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
SHASH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec09e0
66bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a1cf27eaa2c
e, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39E0EE500EAAD
ANK
E1E0B3B8565CB3A7DC9F5CD048197DF0FF
3149AE58, cn=NEETU SHASHANK
Date: 2025.04.30 17:30:24 +05'30'
