Madhya Pradesh High Court

Karanlal Yadav vs Kasturia on 7 March, 2025

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12089




                                                             1                             WP-2865-2018
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                  ON THE 7 th OF MARCH, 2025
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 2865 of 2018
                                              KARANLAL YADAV AND OTHERS
                                                        Versus
                                                 KASTURIA AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri Aditya Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.
                                  Shri Umesh Prasad Pandey - Advocate for the respondents.

                                                                 ORDER

Petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 25/06/2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Niwas in Revenue Case No. 4/अ-23/12-13 allowing an application on behalf of Kasturia w/o Mahasingh Gond declaring the sale deed executed in favour of Jeevanlal S/o Mansharam Pardhan dated 25/04/2010 in relation to land contained in Survey No. 271, 276, 278, 291, 714 and 724 measuring 2.64 hectare to be null and void.

It is submitted that being aggrieved of the said order, petitioner had

filed an appeal before the Collector, District Mandla which was registered as Case No. 8 (अ-23) 13-14 but that too was dismissed vide order dated 25/11/2014 by the Collector, District Mandla, as a result of which the second appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division Jabalpur which was registered as Appeal No. 76/अ-23/2014-15 and in that too, the learned Additional Commissioner has maintained the orders of the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12089

2 WP-2865-2018 learned Sub Divisional Officer.

It is submitted by Shri Aditya Jain that firstly Jeevanlal Pardhan who had purchased the land is belonging to Pardhan Tribe which is notified for the State of M.P. under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950.

Secondly, out of six sellers, only two raised an objection which was signed by only Kasturia Bai whose signatures/thumb impression too is doubtful and, therefore, the application filed by them was not maintainable. It is also submitted that there is substantial delay and after lapse of three years of registration of the sale deed in favour of Jeevanlal, matter could not have been taken up in suo moto revision by the authorities or could have been taken up on an application filed by Kasturia Bai.

Shri Umesh Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that firstly as per terms contained in Section 172 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, there is a list of tribes who are said to be residing throughout the State. In that list, Pardhan is not mentioned. Secondly, infact Jeevanlal is only a face for Karanlal Yadav.

It is submitted that Jeevanlal entered into a sale transaction, though the intention was to give land on lease for five years for excavation of boulders etc. but a sham transaction was entered into and sellers being uneducated were defrauded and Jeevanlal was made to stand in place of Karanlal whereas land was to be given on lease to Karanlal for excavation etc. It is submitted that the learned Sub Divisional officer has rightly noted a fact that Jeevanlal is a Government employee. He had not taken any permission from the Government before entering into said transaction and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12089

3 WP-2865-2018 the fact that throughout, Karanlal was also contesting the case along with Jeevanlal proves this beyond doubt that Jeevanlal is only a mask representing Karanlal and it was Karanlal who cornered lands of tribal people in the name of Jeevanlal by entering into a fraudulent transaction and, therefore, the impugned order needs to be sustained.

Shri Umesh Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the judgment of coordinate Bench of this High Court in Pema Vs. Galiya and others 2003 Revenue Nirnay 434 (High Court) wherein it is noted that land of a tribal person in possession of a person other than the tribe leads to a conclusion of a Benami transaction and, therefore, finding of facts recorded by three courts below based on evidence cannot be interfered with into proceedings under Article 226 and 227.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the learned Sub Divisional Officer Niwas, District Mandla has categorically recorded a finding that Karanlal Yadav is in possession of the land in dispute.

It has come on record that Jeevanlal had given land to Karanlal Yadav @ Rs. 30,000/- per month on contract. Thereafter, Karanlal Yadav was cultivating the lands after taking them on contract.

It has also come on record that Jeevanlal is a Government employee and was working as a senior Lecturer/Incharge Principal etc. and had not given any intimation to any Government officials either for purchasing the land or for giving it on contract to Karanlal.

Therefore, in the light of the decision rendered by the coordinate

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12089

4 WP-2865-2018 Bench of this court in the case of Pema (supra) wherein in para 12 and 13, the coordinate Bench of this court has held as under :-

12. Apart from the above, it has been concurrently held by the

Collector, Commissioner and the Board of Revenue that the

transaction was a Benami transaction because the purchaser Pema at

no point of time has stated that he was in possession of the disputed

land. It has been decided by the revenue authorities that respondent

No. 2 Narwarsingh was possessing the land in question and hence it

was held that the transaction was a Benami transaction. This Court is

of the view that if the Benami transaction has taken place it would be

under the purview of Section 170-B of the Code and the sale can not

be said to be a valid sale and the transaction would be void ab initio.

Though it has been strongly urged by Shri Gokhale, learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner that there is no evidence on record to hold

that Narwarsingh was in possession of the disputed land. But the three

Revenue Authorities by appreciating the evidence came to hold that

indeed the possession on the disputed land was of Narwarsingh and

this is a factor which can not be marginalised and blinked away. This

Court after perusing and considering the reasons ascribed by the

Revenue Authorities finds that the finding in regard to possession and

thereby holding that the transaction was benami are cogent and based

on appreciation of the evidence. It is well settled in law that while

exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution re-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12089

5 WP-2865-2018 appreciation of evidence for arriving at a different conclusion is not

permissible under the law. As finding accorded by the Revenue

Authorities are cogent, I feel myself unable to deviate from the reasons

assigned by them.

13. This Court has already held here in above that even if there is a

transaction in between the member of Aboriginal Tribe, obtaining

permission from the competent authority under the Code is pre-

supposed. As there is no permission for alienating the land, on this

count also the sale deed (Annexure P-l), dated 15-2-1971 is hit by

Section 170-B of the Code. In the latest pronouncement of the Apex

Court in the case of Bhaiji v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thandla and

others, (2003) 1 SCC 692, it has been held that nowhere in the entire

scheme of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 170-B of the Code as

enacted in 1980, there is the least indication of confining the

applicability of the provision to such transaction of transfer as where

entered into by a member of an Aboriginal Tribe in favour of a

member not belonging to an Aboriginal Tribe. Their Lordships has

further held that there is no exception in the enactment so as to

exclude from the purview of Section 170-B of the Code that the inter

se transfer of Aboriginal Tribe is not hit by Section 170-B of the

Code. Had it been so the legislature had specifically said so. In this

context it would be profitable to rely Para 8 of the case of Bhaiji

(supra), which reads thus:--

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12089

6 WP-2865-2018 It is well known that some of the Aboriginal Tribes are

nomadic and some indulge in crimes traditionally and

historically. The purpose of settling land with the tribals

mostly which is done at very concessional rates and at

times even without involving an obligation to pay the land

revenue, is so done with a view to see that the aboriginals

settle at one place abandoning nomadism and picking up

tilling the solid as their vocation by settling at one place

and earning livelihood by labour and toil. It is also well

known that creamy layers have developed and even as

amongst socially unprivileged some have acquired

affluence. An affluent shrewd tribal may indulge in

exploiting his fellow beings. Possibility can not be ruled

out where a non-tribal may manage to have land transferred

apparently but not in reality in the name of a tribal and

taking advantage of his status, affluence or any other

means, conferring him with capacity to exploit, may till the

land to his own advantage depriving the Aboriginal Tribal

from the benefits of the land settled by the State with him.