The Additional Collector had jurisdiction to grant permission for land sale under Section 165(6) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the High Court's interference was erroneous.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore which interfered with the Revisional Order passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, exercising suo motu powers under Section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959,¹[The Code of 1959]. The Revisional Order dated 14.09.2021, set aside the order of the Additional Collector, Ratlam dated 21.03.2018 by which permission under Section 165 (6) of the Code of 1959 was granted for sale of the land of respondent Nos.2 to 5 which resulted in execution of a registered sale deed dated 26.03.2018 in favour of the Writ Petitioner. The impugned order set aside the Revisional Order and directed that any consequential changes made in the revenue records would stand cancelled; restoring the mutation dated 18.05.2018 in the name of the Writ Petitioner.

3. Mr.Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State, argued that the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the suo moto order passed by the Commissioner, which was in accordance with the provisions of the Code of 1959. Section 165 regulated the rights on transfer of the bhumiswami (landlords); to protect and preserve the lands of Tribals who could be easily induced to alienate it without being aware of the consequences. In the present case, it was the Additional Collector who granted permission under Section 165 (6) (ii) when only the Collector or an officer higher in rank could have granted such permission. It is pointed out that the Additional Collector was not allocated the specific powers under Section 165 (6) as on the date of the grant of permission and the permission did not consider various aspects as required under sub-section (6-c). The grant of permission was not only without jurisdiction but also was vitiated by total non-application of mind.

4. Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in the appeal, who was the Writ Petitioner, pointed out from the Code of 1959 itself that Section 11 while delineating the various classes of Revenue Officers named ‘Collectors (including Additional Collectors)’. It is also pointed out that by Annexure R-1, produced along with the counter-affidavit, the named Additional Collector who granted permission, was authorized by the Collector to exercise the powers under the Code of 1959; which order is dated 19.05.2017 prior to the grant of permission. The order impugned in the Writ Petition is read over to urge that consideration was on all aspects required under Section 165 (6-c); especially considering the fact that admittedly the land was not located in the area notified by the State Government as predominantly inhabited by aboriginal tribes and the permission being enabled under Clause (ii) of sub-section of Section 165 (6). The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anil Kaushik appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, the original landlords who were the vendors in the sale deed supported the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

5. The High Court in its order found that the exercise of suo motu powers can be only within 180 days of knowledge and the revisional order having been passed after expiry of the period as held in a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Collector had referred the matter to the Commissioner in the month of October, 2018 and the final order was passed by the Commissioner after almost three years on 14.09.2021 long after the limitation period expired the date of knowledge being at least, the date on which the Collector referred the matter to the Commissioner.

6. On merits, it was found that the request made by the landowners was genuine and they received consideration more than that of the market value existing on the date. It was also found, based on the distribution memo dated 22.11.2016 that the Additional Collector had bee