Savina Park Resorts and Tours Pvt. Ltd. vs State of M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(MP) 851

2012 jk fu 97o 2012 RN 97
¼mPp U;k;ky;½ (HIGH COURT)
U;k- lqtkW; ikWy
Sujoy Paul, J.
lfouk ikdZ fjlksVZ~l ,aM VwlZ izk- fyfe-] Xokfy;j fo- e-iz- jkT; rFkk vU;
Savina Park Resorts and Tours Pvt. Ltd., Gwalior v. State of M.P. and others
fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 4594 lu~ 2009 ¼Xokfy;j½( fu.khZr fnukad 23-11-2011A
Writ Petition No. 4595 of 2009 (Gwalior); Decided on 23.11.2011.

Advocates:
xkSjo ljhu rFkk ;ksxs‘k prqosZnh ;kph dh vksj ls( Hkxoku jkt ik.Ms] ljdkjh vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ@jkT; dh vksj lsA
Gaurav Sarin and Yogesh Chaturvedi for petitioner; Bhagwan Raj Pandey, Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:1- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 50 rFkk 165 ¼7&[k½ & Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k & ifjlhek dk vkjaHk fcanq & Hkwfe dk iV~Vk /kkjd HkwfeLokeh gks x;k & dyDVj dh vuqKk ds fcuk ,slh Hkwfe dk varj.k & dzsrk }kjk laO;ogkj ds vuqleFkZu ds fy, 26-8-2008 dks vkosnu & dyDVj ds le{k 9-4-2009 dks ifjokn & ,sls ifjokn ij tkap izfrosnu 22-5-2009 dks dyDVj }kjk izkIr & ifjlhek fcanq 22-5-2009 ls vkjaHk gksxk tc tkap izfrosnu izkIr gksus ij dyDVj dh tkudkjh esa vk;k & tkudkjh dh ,slh rkjh[k ls & 180 fnu ds Hkhrj Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx le; oftZr ugha gSA 2010 jk fu 409 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA 1993 lIyh- ¼2½ ,l lh lh 497 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 8 ls 10
       2- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ & Hkwfe dk iV~Vk iznku fd;k x;k & iV~Vk /kkjd HkwfeLokeh gks x;k & dyDVj dh vuqKk ds fcuk ,slh Hkwfe dk varj.k & fodzsrk dh tkudkjh esa ;g Fkk fd mls Hwkfe iV~Vk ls nh xbZ Fkh & fodzsrk nks"kdrkZ Fkk & dsoy [kljk izfof"V;ksa esa mYys[k u gksuk ;k v‘kq) mYys[k gksuk & varj.k dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha nsrkA ¼2007½ 11 ,l lh lh 447 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 11
       3- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 165 ¼6&[k½ rFkk 165 ¼7&[k½ & Hkwfe dk iV~Vk iznku fd;k x;k & dyDVj dh vuqKk ds fcuk varj.k & /kkjk 165 ¼6&[k½ ds v/khu vuqleFkZu ds fy, izLrqr vkosnu ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;k & Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k esa iV~Vk jn~n fd;k rFkk fodz; ewyr% ‘kwU; Bgjk;k x;k & tc laO;ogkj ewyr% ‘kwU; Fkk & izFkd~ ls vkns‘k ikfjr djus dh vko‘;drk ugha rFkk mi;qZDr vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k x;k ekuk tk,xkA 2002 jk fu 250 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12 ls 16
       4- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ rFkk 158 ¼3½ & Hkwfe dk iV~Vk iznku fd;k x;k & iV~Vk /kkjd HwkfeLokeh gks x;k & iV~Vk iznku djus dh rkjh[k ls 10 o"kZ i‘pkr~ & dyDVj dh vuqKk ds fcuk HkwfeLokeh }kjk ,slh Hkwfe varfjr ugha dh tk ldrhA 2002 jk fu 250 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 18

       (1) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- Ss. 50 and 165 (7-b) -- suo motu revision -- starting point of limitation -- patta holder of land became Bhumiswami -- transfer of such land without permission of Collector -- application by purchaser for ratification of transaction on 26.8.2008 -- complaint before Collector on 9.4.2009 -- on such complaint enquiry report received by Collector on 22.5.2009 -- limitation will start from date when Collector came to know on 22.5.2009 by receiving enquiry report -- from such date of knowledge -- exercise of suo motu revisional powers within 180 days is not barred by time. 2010 RN 409 (FB) relied on. 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 497 referred to. [Paras 8 to 10
       (2) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S. 165 (7-b) -- Patta of land granted -- patta holder became Bhumiswami -- without permission of Collector such land transferred -- it was in knowledge of seller that land was granted to him by patta -- seller was wrongdoer -- mere non-mention or incorrect mention in khasra entries -- does not give any right of transfer. (2007) 11 SCC 447 distinguished. [Para 11
       (3) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- Ss. 165 (6-b) and 165 (7-b) -- land granted on patta -- sale without permission of Collector -- application for ratification filed under section 165 (6-B) not considered -- patta cancelled and sale held void ab initio in suo motu revision -- when transaction was void ab initio -- no need to pass any separate order and said application will be deemed to be rejected. 2002 RN 250 relied on.
        [Paras 12 to 16
       (4) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- Ss. 165 (7-b) and 158 (3) -- land granted on patta -- patta holder became Bhumiswami -- after ten years from date of grant of patta -- without permission of Collector such land cannot be transferred by Bhumiswami. 2002 RN 250 relied on.
        [Paras 17 and 18

ORDER

1. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under :-

The petitioner allegedly purchased the land situated in Survey No. 55/1/M-3 Rakba 0.470 hectare and 85/5 Rakba 0.627 hectare, from Harmukha by the alleged registered sale deeds dated 5.4.2008 and 15.1.2008. The petitioner received “Bhu Adhikar Rin Pustika” from the respondents. The petitioner’s case is that in the land records the name of Harmukha was recorded as Bhumiswami and there was no mention regarding any “patta”. The petitioner further submits that after purchase of land, petitioner filed mutation application before respondents No. 4 Tahsildar. He was informally informed that the land purchased by the petitioner may have been “patta land”. At this stage, petitioner preferred an application to Collector for ratifying the transfer and validating the transaction as per section 165 (6-b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (for brevity, the ‘Code’). The petitioner submits that this application (Annexure P/7) is received in the office of Collector on 26.8.2008.

2. The petitioner at this stage filed present petition for a direction to take a decision on the application dated 3.1.2008 before Tahsildar for mutation and on application dated 26.8.2008 before the Collector for ratification of aforesaid sale transaction.

3. During pendency of the petition, the Collector passed its order dated 14.1.2010 by taking up the matter in a suo motu revision. By way of amendment, the petitioner challenged this order dated 14.1.2010 as well.

4. Smt. Gaurav Sarin and Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner have raised following points to assail the impugned order :-

(A) The Collector took the matter in suo motu revision under the Code on 28.10.2009, which was barred by time. The impugned order dated 14.1.2010 is passed after 505 days from the date of application of petitioner to the Collector dated 26.8.2008.; As per Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ranveer Singh and others v. State of M.P. and others reported in 2010 (3) JLJ 77 = 2010 RN 409 = AIR 2011 MP 27, it is held that suo motu powers could not have been exercised beyond a period of 180 days.

(B) The respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong, as at the time of purchase of land there was no remark in the revenue document that it is a “patta land”. Support is drawn from (2007) 11 SCC 447 (Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and others).

(C) The application dated 26.8.2008 for ratification is not considered and dealt with, which is contrary to the mandate of section 165 (6-b) of the Code and Collector was under a legal obligation to decide it either way.

(D) The transfer of land by Bhu Swami is after a period of ten years and thus, the sale transaction was neither fraudulent nor forged but legal and capable or ratification under section 165 (6-b) of the Code.

5. Per contra, Shri Bhagwan Raj Pandey, learned Government Advocate would submit that no relief is due to the petitioner in the present writ petition. He submits that in sale deed not a single word is mentioned regarding name of seller Harmukha showing him to be owner of the land on the basis of patta granted by the Government. In other words, learned Government Advocate submits that there is no mention of “patta land” in the alleged sale deed. Accordingly, this cannot be said that on perusal of this sale deed the Collector had gathered knowledge regarding the sale deed executed by a “patta holder”. It is the case of the State that when one Pushpendra Singh Sengar filed a complaint to the Collector with regard to transaction made between the parties, upon this an enquiry was felt necessary to ascertain the the correctness and legality of the same. He further submits that the Collector on the said complaint of Shri Sengar ordered on 10.4.2009 to investigate the matter by Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.). Accordingly, investigation was made and enquiry report was forwarded to the Collector. On perusal of enquiry report it was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document