Smt. Pantubai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 5191 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Pantubai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2025

Author: Prem Narayan Singh

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5966




                                                              1                              MP-3866-2018
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                        BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                MISC. PETITION No. 3866 of 2018
                                                    SMT. PANTUBAI
                                                        Versus
                                      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                           Shri Vishwambhar Varangaonkar - advocate for the petitioner.

                           Shri Shashikant Bhati, learned PL for the State.

                           Shri Akshansh Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].

                                                   RESERVED ON        : 21.02.2025
                                                  PRONOUNCED ON : 06.03.2025
                                                                  ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the present petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 6.3.2018, passed in CRR No. 4132-2/2013.

2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disputed land

has been purchased by the petitioner from Respondent No. 3 (a) Dilip and (b) Vijay by sale deed and thereafter the land was also mutated in favour of the petitioner. There is no violation of Section 165 or any other provision of MPLRC Act. However, in the year 2013, the Collector, Indore has issued notice to the petitioner. The mutation order has been taken in Suo Motu revision and in this way, the petitioner title has been extinguished by the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5966

2 MP-3866-2018 respondents. The order was challenged before the Revenue Authorities in Revision under Section 50 of MPLRC. The Board has also dismissed the petitioners' petition and affirmed the order of the Collector. It is contended that the said mutation was done in the year 2008, after 10 years it was purchased by the petitioner, Suo Moto revision is time barred. There is limitation of 180 days for Suo Moto revision. The Collector has erred in using the power of Section 165(7)(b) MPLRC, as it cannot be used retrospectively. Likewise, the order of Revenue Board is also against law. Hence, the order dated 6.3.2018, passed by the Collector, Indore may be set aside and the petition may be allowed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed

the prayer and has submitted that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner from Respondent Nos.3(a) and (b) and the land in question was mutated in the name of the petitioner in relevant revenue record. It is pertinent hereto mention that the answering respondent No.1 initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and accordingly issued notices with regard thereto. In the aforesaid proceedings, the respondent No.1 passed an order dated 21/06/2013 and directed the respondent No.2 to mutate the name of State of Madhya Pradesh by replacing the name of petitioner in the relevant revenue records. The land in question is a Government land and the same was allotted to the respondent No.3(a) on lease basis in accordance with terms and conditions that the land or lease was non-transferable. The status of the respondent No.3(a) and (b) is only as a Government Lassee and therefore, he has no

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5966

3 MP-3866-2018 right of ownership and titlement on the said land. If in violation of the leasehold terms and conditions, the respondent No. 3(a), fraudulently showing the leasehold land of his ownership, sold the land in question to anyone, such purchaser does not hold any ownership right or title over the said land on the basis of the same and any mutation in revenue records on such basis is illegal and void ab-initio. Respondent No. 1, after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case has rightly passed the order dated 21.6.2013 and directed the respondent No. 2 to mutate the land in question in the name of the Sate of Madhya Pradesh and learned Revenue Board, Gwalior has rightly passed the order dated 6.3.2018 in Revision case No. 4132-2/2013.

4. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the matter has been considered.

5 Before examining the sanctity of the impugned orders it is apposite to refer provisions of Section 182 of MPLRC herein below:-

182. Rights and liabilities of a Government lessee.

(1) A Government lessee shall, subject to any express provisions in this Code, hold his land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant, which shall be deemed to be a grant within the meaning of the Government Grants Act, 1895 (XV of 1895).

(2) A Government lessee may be ejected from his land by order of [the Collector] [Substituted 'a Revenue Officer' by M.P. Act No. 23 of 2018] on one or more of the following grounds, namely :-

(i) that he has failed to pay the rent for a period of three months from the date on which it became due; or

(ii) that he has used such land for purposes other than for which it was granted; or

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5966

4 MP-3866-2018

(iii) that the term of his lease has expired; or

(iv) that he has contravened any of the terms and conditions of the grant :

Provided that no order for ejectment of a Government lessee.

6 However, in this regard, the provision of 165 (7)(b) MPLRC is worth to reproduced here:-

"[(7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), [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] [Inserted by M.P. Act No. 15 of 1980.] 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.]"

7 Sub Section 3 of Section 158(3) of MPLRC is also required to be reproduced :-

(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 and thereafter may transfer such land with the permission obtained under sub-section (7-b) of section 165 of MPLRC.

8. Further, on this aspect, the relevant portion of Mulayam Singh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5966

5 MP-3866-2018 Anor. Vs. Budhwa Chamar and Ors. reported as 2002 MPLJ (2) 480 is also condign to quote here:-

Respondent No. 1 was granted patta as landless person belonging to Scheduled Caste. This patta was granted on 3-11-73. He was declared bhumiswami in the year 1982 and his name was accordingly recorded. The sale deed executed on 3-3-1989 was in contravention of the provisions of Section 165 (7-B) of the Code, which reads as under :--

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a person who holds 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 reason to be recorded in writing."

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 gel 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.

6. So far as the question of invoking suo motu power in revision by the Additional Collector under Section 50 of the Code is concerned, in our opinion, this power has rightly been exercised by the Additional Collector. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Murari Lal and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. , (1994 MPLJ 378) has held in para 10 that :--

"It has been, in the last, argued for the petitioners that though no time limit has been prescribed for exercising suo motu powers of revision, yet they should be exercised within a reasonable time. For the said preposition in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghu Natha (AIR 1969 SC at page 1297), has been cited for the petitioners. In this regard, it has to be seen that it is a

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5966

6 MP-3866-2018 cardinal principle of law of limitation that prescribed period (if any) of limitation starts running from the date of acquiring the knowledge of the relevant fact giving rise to the cause of action. In the present case, the relevant lands were recorded in the name of a deity. The Collector started proceedings as soon as the fact of alleged mutation in the names of the petitioners were brought to his notice. Taking action "within a reasonable time" is a relative term. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, action was taken within a reasonable time."

9. The aforesaid judgment has recently been followed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh in the case of Tarachand Yadav Vs. State of Chhatisgarh {2024 Law Suit (Chh) 435} in Para No. 8, which is reproduce below:-

"In the matter of Mulayam Singh And Anor. Vs. Budhuwa Chamar and Ors. reported in [Manu/MP/0102/2002 : 2002 (2) MPHT 140 ], even BhumiSwami Rights has been vested under Section 158 (3) of the Code to a lessee who is holding land in Bhumiswami rights granted to him by the State Government under the said provisions and the same is subject to Section 165 (7-b) of the Code so the plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that the patta has been granted way back prior to the amendment therefore, no permission is required, is not tenable. "

10. Actually, without getting permission of revenue Authorities not below the rank of Collector, transferee has no right to transfer the land to any one. Under these circumstances, the orders passed by Collector as well as Revenue Board are found in accordance with law and do not warrant any interference.

11 Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.

12. However, the petitioners have right to file title suit with

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5966

7 MP-3866-2018 regard to said land.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE VD