Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhiraj Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26528
1 WP-15317-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 20th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15317 of 2021
DHIRAJ SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arpan Pawar - Senior Advocate with Shri Jaideep Verma - Advocate for
petitioners.
Shri Lalit Joglekar - Govt. Advocate for respondent-State.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh - Advocate for respondent nos.3, 4, 8, 12.
Reserved on : 30.04.2025
Posted : 20.06.2025
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India challenging order dated 29.04.2021 passed by
Additional Commissioner, Shahdol in Revision No.24/Revision/2017-
2. Brief facts of the case is that Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.)
initiated proceedings under Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.
Said proceedings were registered as Case No.124/2/3/1975-76. Final
order in the case was passed on 26.02.1976 and direction was given to
prepare final draft statement. In the order, out of 97.61 acres belonging
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26528
2 WP-15317-2021
to Yashoda and Jawahar, 43.61 acres of land was declared to be surplus.
Said order of S.D.O. was challenged by Satyapal Singh and Malti Devi
before Additional Collector Shahdol. It was submitted by appellants that
74.05 acres of land belonging to Smt. Yashoda Bai w/o Chaturbhuj
Chhatpar and of Jawahar s/o Chaturbhuj Chhatpar was purchased by him
by registered sale deed dated 25.05.1965. Mutation of land was done in
his name vide order dated 31.01.1972 in revenue case No.3/A-6/71-72.
Additional Collector vide order dated 14.06.1996 allowed the appeal and
set-aside the order passed by S.D.O. dated 26.02.1976, by which 43.61
acres of land was declared to be surplus. Order dated 14.06.1996 passed
in appeal was challenged by the State Government by filing revision
before Commissioner Shahdol. Said revision was registered as case
No.163/suo-motu/revision/2009-10. Revision was dismissed vide order
dated 21.08.2012 holding that land in question was entered in name of
private persons between 1923-24 to 1950-51. Commissioner cannot
examine the case exercising power under Section 50 of MP Land
Revenue Code in respect of change of entries made prior to coming into
force of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. It was held that commissioner
does not have jurisdiction to entertain revision and same was dismissed
vide order dated 21.08.2012. Civil suit was filed by Jawahar for
declaration of title and possession over 98.73 acres of land against
Dheeraj Singh and others. Case was registered as Suit No.54A/12. Civil
Suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.01.2015. One Bhagwandeen
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26528
3 WP-15317-2021
also filed revision challenging order of additional Collector dated
14.06.1996. Bhagwandeen was allottee of surplus land. Therefore, he is
affected by order of Additional Collector dated 14.06.1996. He filed
revision application on grounds that S.D.O. has held that transfer of land
was made to frustrate provision of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,
1960. Collector failed to take into consideration aforesaid aspects while
passing impugned order dated 14.06.1996. Applicant received
information regarding orders of Additional Collector vide letter dated
05.08.1999 and thereafter revision no.24/Revision/2017-18 was filed on
24.09.1999. Collector treated the revision to be within time. Non-
applicant had placed reliance on order passed in revision dated
21.08.2012 wherein revision preferred by State Government against the
order passed by Additional Collector dated 14.06.1996 has been
dismissed. It is submitted that order passed in revision is final and
application of applicant-Bhagwandeen was not maintainable. Additional
Commissioner held that issue in revision filed by State Government was
against settlement of land. Forest land cannot be settled. Aforesaid facts
mentioned in revision are different & do not cover the case of
Bhagwandeen and said order is of no help to non-applicant. Revision
filed by applicant-Bhagwandeen was allowed vide order dated
29.04.2021 and impugned order dated 14.06.1996 was set-aside. Order
of S.D.O. Suhagpur dated 26.02.1976 was confirmed. Direction was
given to enter the name of allottees and his legal heirs in revenue records
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26528
4 WP-15317-2021
and rest of the land be entered in the name of State Government.
3. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.04.2021
in this petition on grounds that Commissioner failed to take into
consideration the fact that S.D.O. in ceiling case did not issue notice to
the owner of the land while initiating proceedings under the Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. Order was set-aside by Additional
Collector in appeal. Commissioner has not taken into consideration the
reasoning and grounds on basis of which Additional Collector allowed
the appeal vide order dated 14.06.1996 and set-aside the order declaring
land to be surplus. It is submitted that father and grand father of
petitioner was never noticed for any proceedings under Ceiling on
Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, and land could not have been declared
surplus. Order has rightly been set-aside by the Additional Collector.
Commissioner in revision failed to take into account the order dated
21.08.2012, therefore, order impugned is illegal and same may be set-
aside.
4. Counsel appearing for respondents supported that order passed
in revision and raised grounds mentioned in revision for setting aside the
order. Counsel for respondents prayed for dismissal of writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties.
6. S.D.O. has passed an order dated 26.02.1976 against holder of
land namely Yashoda Bai and Jawahar declaring 43.61 acres of land to
be surplus. Said order was challenged in an appeal before Additional
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26528
5 WP-15317-2021
Collector. Additional Collector by order dated 14.06.1996 set-aside the
order dated 26.02.1976. Order was set-aside on grounds that appellants
were purchasers of the land in question and they were not given an
opportunity of hearing. Mutation of land has also been done in their
names in the revenue records, therefore, before passing any order for
declaring the land to be surplus, owners of the land ought to have been
given an opportunity of hearing. Order passed by Additional Collector
dated 14.06.1996 was challenged in revision by one Bhagwandeen.
Order passed by Additional Collector dated 14.06.1996 was set-aside in
revision by order dated 29.04.2021 on grounds that S.D.O. has held that
transfer of land was made to circumscribe the provisions under Ceiling
on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. It was further held that order dated
21.08.2012 on revision preferred by State Government was not in
respect of orders passed under Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,
1960 but against settlement done in respect of forest land, therefore,
same will not affect the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner in
exercising power.
7. Considering reasoning nos.1 & 2 given by Additional
Commissioner Shahdol for setting aside the order, it is found that said
reasoning is defective and illegal. Transfer of land was made by
registered sale-deed 24.05.1965. Order was passed by competent
authority on 26.02.1976. Appointed day as per the Section 2(b) of the
Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 is 07.03.1974. Transfer or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:26528
6 WP-15317-2021
partitions made after publication of bill but before commencement of
Act i.e. from 07.03.1974 of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960
can be declared void by competent authority. In this case, transfer has
not been declared void and sale has been made much before appointed
day, therefore, it cannot be that sale was made to defeat the provisions of
the Act. Revisional Court committed an error in relying upon the order
of S.D.O. dated 26.02.1976 to hold that transfer was made to defeat the
provisions of the Act. No reasons have been given and further transfer
has also not been declared void, therefore, order passed by Additional
Commissioner in revision is bad in law.
8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, order
passed by Additional Commissioner Shahdol dated 29.04.2021 is set-
aside.
9. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
10. Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
nd
