Back
1993 Supreme(MP) 541
1994 JLJ 210
V.D. Gyani and R.D. Shukla, JJ.
Keshar Singh and another v. Bhavsingh and others
M.P. No: 274 of 1987; Decided on 14.9.1993.
A.S. Garg for petitioners; B.K. Nigam for respondents.
Headnote:(1) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi-Bhumi Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (M.P.) -- S. 2 (f) and (a) -- sale-deed executed in 1960 -- no other document executed -- transaction cannot be reopened after 21 years in absence of document and cogent evidence of subsistence of transaction of loan -- such transaction is not "prohibited transaction". [Para 19
(2) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi-Bhumi Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (M.P.) -- Ss.2 (c) and 5 -- Sub-Divisional officer reopening transaction under S. 5 -- has to make enquiry and ascertain that applicant is a "holder of agricultural land" as per S.2 (c). [Para 20
(3) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi-Bhumi Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Niyam, 1976 (M.P.) -- R.3 -- application under S. 5 of the Act not given in accordance with provisions of this rule -- it is simply an irregularity and not illegality. [Para 21
(4) Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi-Bhumi Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (M.P.) -- Ss.5 and 6 -- enquiry on application under S, 5 -- opposite party not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of applicant -- enquiry vitiates -- such order is liable to be quashed. [Para 21
(5) Anusuchit Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 (M.P.) -- Ss. 2 (4) and 4 -- Debt Relief Court found a document to be an outright sale-deed -- such finding operates as res judicata in all subsequent proceedings between the parties. [Para 22
(6) Civil P.C., 1908‘-- S.11 -- competent authority found a document to be of a particular nature -- such finding operates as res judicata in all subsequent proceedings between the parties. [Para 22
(7) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- writ petition under -- High Court is not required to go into controversial fact -- still broad principles of law can be looked into -- Court can further examine whether finding arrived at is in accordance with law or legal provisions. [Para 18
¼1½ lekt ds detksj oxks± ds Ñf"k&Hkwfe /kkjdksa dk m/kkj nsus okyksa ds Hkwfe gM+ius laca/kh dqpØksa ls ifj=k.k rFkk eqfDr vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 2¼p½ rFkk ¼d½ & foØ; foys[k 1960 esa fu"ikfnr & vU; dksbZ nLrkost fu"ikfnr ugha & nLrkost vkSj m/kkj ds laO;ogkj dh fo|ekurk dh fu‘pk;d lk{; ds vHkko esa laO;ogkj 21 o"kZ Ik‘pkr iqu% ugha [kksyk tk ldrk & ,slk laO;ogkj ^^çfrf"k)a laO;ogkj** ugha gSaA ¿iSjk 19
¼2½ lekt ds detksj oxks± ds Ñf"k&Hkwfe /kkjdksa dk m/kkj nsus okyksa ds Hkwfe gM+ius laca/kh dqpØksa ls ifj=k.k rFkk eqfDr vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 2 ¼x½ rFkk 5 & mi[kaM vf/kdkjh }kjk /kkjk 5 ds v/khu laO;ogkj iqu% [kksyk tkuk & tk¡p djuk gksxh vkSj ;g vfHkfuf‘fpr djuk gksxk fd vkosnd /kkjk 2¼x½ ds vuqlkj ^^Ñf"k&Hkwfe /kkjd** gSA ¿iSjk 20
¼3½ lekt ds detksj oxks± ds Ñf"k&Hkwfe /kkjdksa dk m/kkj nsus okyksa ds Hkwfe gM+ius laca/kh dqpØksa ls ifj=k.k rFkk eqfDr fu;e] 1978 ¼e-ç-½ & fu- 3& vkosnu bl fu;e ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj ugha fn;k x;k &;g dsoy vfu;ferrk gS] voS/krk ughaA ¿iSjk 21
¼4½ lekt ds detksj oxks± ds Ñf"k&Hkwfe /kkjdksa dk m/kkj nsus okyksa ds Hkwfe gM+ius laca/kh dqpØksa ls ifj=k.k rFkk eqfDr vf/kfu;e] 1976 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 5 rFkk 6 & /kkjk 5 ds v/khu vkosnu ij tk¡p & fojks/kh i{kdkj dks vkosnd ds lkf{k;ksa dh çfrijh{kk dk volj ugha fn;k x;k & tk¡p nwf"kr gks tkrh gS & ,slk vkns‘k vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA ¿iSjk 21
¼5½ vuqlwfpr tkfr rFkk vuqlwfpr tutkfr _.kh lgk;rk vf/kfu;e] 1967 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 2 ¼4½ rFkk 4 & _.k lgk;rk U;k;ky; }kjk nLrkost Li"V :Ik ls foØ; foys[k ik;k x;k & ,slk fu"d"kZ Ik{kdkjksa ds chp Ik‘pkrorhZ leLr dk;Zokfg;ksa esa iwoZ U;k; dh Hkk¡fr çofrZr gksrk gSA ¿iSjk 22
¼6½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 11 & l{ke çkf/kdkjh }kjk nLrkost fof‘k"V ço`fÙk dk ik;k x;k & ,slk fu"d"kZ Ik{kdkjksa ds chp Ik‘pkorhZ leLr dk;Zokfg;kas esa iwoZ U;k; dh Hkk¡fr çofrZr gksrk gSA ¿iSjk 22
¼7½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-226 rFkk 227 & ds v/khu fjV ;kfpdk & mPp U;k;ky; ls fooknxzLr rF; dh tk¡p fd;k tkuk visf{kr ugha gSa & rc Hkh fof/k ds O;kid fl)karksa ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS & U;k;ky; ;g Hkh ijh{kk dj ldrk gS fd çkIr fu"d"kZ D;k fof/k vFkok fof/kd mica/kksa ds vuqlkj gSA ¿iSjk 18
R.D. Shukla, J. - 1. The petitioners challenge the order of Sub-Divisional Officer (Annexure 'D') and the Appellate order of Collector (Annexure 'C') whereby the sale of land bearing Survey No. 1187 area 9.7 acres of village Kanadia for a sum of Rs. 2,500/- in favour of the petitioner has been set-aside with the further direction of delivery of possession to respondent No.1, the vendee of the land.
2. This case has a checkered history. The petitioner, as claimed by them purchased land vide registered sale-deed dated 27.6.1960 (Annexure 'A'). The petitioner was in possession of the disputed land.
3. The respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Debt Relief Court which was registered as case No, 283/75-76 with the assertions that the transaction of sale (Annexure ‘A') was in fact transaction of loan and the land was mortgaged. Learned Debt Relief Court vide order dated 9.1.78 found that the transaction was not of loan or mortgage but the sale of land out right. Respondent No.1 filed Revision against the said order before the Additional Collector, Indore vide case No. 63/Revision/77-78 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 17.7.1978 (Ann. 'B').
4. Respondent thereafter filed an application dated 31.8.81 under Sec. 5 of the M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was registered as case No. 2-A/70/81-82. The petitioners were proceeded ex parte. Learned S.D.O. vide order dated 29.1.82 directed the petitioner to hand-over the possession. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector which was registered as case No. 23/Appeal/81-82. The same was dismissed vide order dated 8.12.82.
5. Petitioners aggrieved by this order filed M.P. No. 724/82 before this Court. The same was allowed vide order dated 26.10.83 and the S.D.O. was directed to afford opportunity to the petitioners to contest the said application. The petitioners after making their appearance before the Sub-Divisional Officer filed their reply and the S.D.O. ultimately allowed the application of respondent vide order dated 11.2.86 and directed delivery of possession treating the transaction as transaction of loan (Ann. 'D').
6. The petitioners wanted to file the appeal before the Collector but the same was not entertained unless the possession of land was delivered. The petitioner, therefore, filed second petition before this Court which was registered as M.P. No. 343/86. This Court stayed the orderof S.D.O. dated 11.2.86 (Annexure 'E').
7. The petitioners again filed appeal before the Collector which was transferred to Additional Collector and registered as Appeal No. 14/Appeal/85-86. However, the Additional Collector refused to decide the appeal so long the petition was pending in the High Court. As such, the petitioners withdrew the petition with the permission of this Court and after obtaining a direction that the stay against the order of S.D.O. shall continue till the disposal of the appeal.
8. The Additional Collector dismissed the appeal vide order dated 27.2.87 (Annexure 'C').
9. The petitioners challenge both these orders (Ann. 'D' and 'G') on the following grounds:-
(a) That the S.D.O. and the Collector did not follow the directions made by this Court in the petition (M.P. 724/87) whereby an enquiry under Sec. 5 of the Act was directed to be made. As such the proceedings are vitiated and are illegal.
(b) That application in Form No.1 as per Rule 3 of section 5 of the Act was not filed. Hence the S.D.O. has no jurisdiction for proceeding in the matter.
(c) That there was no enquiry as to whether the respondents belong to weaker section and hold 8 hectares of unirregated or 4 hectares of irregated land.
(d) That the petitioners were not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined earlier i.e. before remand of the file.
(e) That in view of the finding of the Debt Relief Court that the transac
