Back
2012 jk fu 246 o 2012 RN 246
¼mPp U;k;ky;½(HIGH COURT)
U;k- ,l-ds- xaxsys rFkk U;k- th-Mh- lDlsuk
S.K. Gangele and G.D. Saxena, JJ.
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 vihy Ø- 22 lu~ 2012 ¼Xokfy;j½( ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk
fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 4595 lu~ 2009&2010 jk fu 97 esa izdkf‘kr] esa ikfjr vkns‘k ds fo#)( fu.khZr fnukad 16-2-2012A
Writ Appeal No. 22 of 2012 (Gwalior); against order
dated 23.11.2011 passed by Single Judge in
writ petition No. 4595 of 2009 (Published in 2012 RN 97);
Decided on 16.2.2012.
vihykFkhZ }kjk liz;kstu ls gjeq[k dks mlds mÙkj ls cpus ds fy, fjV ;kfpdk vFkok bl vihy esa i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;kA ;fn vihykFkhZ dk fooj.k Lohdkj Hkh fd;k tkrk gS] rc Hkh] vihykFkhZ dks ;g rF; LFkkfir djuk gksxk fd mlus gjeq[k tkVo ls Hkwfe Ø; dh gS rFkk ;g gjeq[k tkVo }kjk fd, x, dyDVj ds le{k vfHkopuksa rFkk izdFkuksa ds izdk"k esa egRoiw.kZ gS fd mlus vihykFkhZ ds i{k esa dksbZ foØ; foys[k fu"ikfnr ugha fd;kA vihykFkhZ dk ;g d`R; vR;Ur vkifRrÙktud gS rFkk gekjh jk; esa] ;g U;k;ky; ij diV djus dh dksfV esa vkrk gSA ¼iSjk 9
izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls] ge bl /kkj.kk dk fu"d"kZ fudkyrs gS fd vihykFkhZ us tkucw>dj HkwfeLokeh dh Hkwfe izkIr djus dk iz;kl fd;k gS] ftls ljdkj }kjk iÍk iznku fd;k x;k FkkA izFken`"V;k] ge larq"V gSa fd vihykFkhZ ds d`R; dk iw.kZ:is.k vUos"k.k fd;k tkuk gS] ftlls vihykFkhZ ds fo#) leqfpr dkjZokbZ dh tk lds] blfy,] dyDVj us vihykFkhZ ds fo#) izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dk jftLVªs‘ku djkuk lgh&gh vknsf‘kr fd;k gSA 1996 jk fu 175 ¼mPpre U;k-½( ¼2008½ 12 ,l lh lh 481] ¼2003½ 9 ,l lh lh 401 rFkk ¼2010½ 8 ,l lh lh 660 vuqlfjrA 2002 jk fu 95 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 14
¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 50 rFkk 165 ¼7&[k½ & Hkwfe iÍs ij iznku dh xbZ & iÍk/kkjh HkwfeLokeh gks x;k & fcuk vuqefr ds varj.k & ifjokn ij Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k dk;Zokgh lafLFkr & Øsrk }kjk foØ; ds vuqleFkZu ds fy, vkosnu & HkwfeLokeh }kjk foØ; foys[k ds fu"iknu ls bUdkj fd;k x;k & Øsrk }kjk diV fd;k x;k & Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k ‘kfä;k¡ tkudkjh dh rkjh[k ls 180 fnu ds Hkhrj iz;qä & vkns‘k vf/kdkfjrk jfgr ugha gS & vihy lO;; [kkfjt dh xbZA 2010 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 77 ¾ 2010 jk fu 409 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA 2012 jk fu 97 vfHkiq"VA ¼iSjk 15
(1) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- Ss. 165 (7-b) and 50 -- lease of land -- lessee became Bhumiswami -- transfer without permission -- suo motu revision on complaint -- application by purchaser for ratification of transfer -- execution of sale deed denied by Bhumiswami -- sale declared void -- in writ petition or writ appeal Bhumiswami not impleaded by purchaser to avoid his reply -- such act of purchaser is highly objectionable -- it amounts playing fraud upon the Court -- Collector has rightly directed registration of FIR against purchaser.
The appellant has purposefully did not add Harmukha as a party in the writ petition or in this appeal in order to avoid his reply. Even if the version of the appellant be accepted, then also, the appellant has to establish the fact that he has purchased the land from Harmukha Jatav and it is important in the light of the pleadings and averments made by Harmukha Jatava before the Collector that he has not executed any sale-deed in favour of the appellant. This act of the appellant is highly objectionable and in our opinion, it amounts playing fraud upon the Court. [Para 9
From the facts of the case, we have gathered an impression that the appellant has deliberately tried to get the land of land owner, who had been granted Patta by the Government. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the act of the appellant has to be investigated thoroughly, so that a proper action can be taken against the appellant, hence, the Collector has rightly ordered registration of First Information Report against the appellant.1996 RN 175 (SC), (2008) 12 SCC 481, (2003) 9 SCC 401 and (2010) 8 SCC 660 followed. 2002 RN 95 relied on. [Para 14
(2) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- Ss.50 and 165 (7-b) -- land granted on lease -- lessee became Bhumiswami -- transfer without permission -- suo motu revisional proceedings initiated on complaint -- application by purchaser for ratification of sale -- execution of sale deed denied by Bhumiswami -- fraud played by purchaser -- suo motu revisional powers exercised within 180 from date of knowledge -- order is not without jurisdiction -- appeal dismissed with cost. 2010 (3) JLJ 77 = 2010 RN 409 (F.B.) relied on. 2012 RN 97 affirmed. [Para 15
S.K. Gangele, J. - 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4595/2009. [Published in 2012 RN 97].
2. One Harmukha son of Samle Jatav, resident of Kheriya Mrityu, Tehsil and district Gwalior, had been granted a patta by Tehsildar vide order dated 04.01.1994 in regard to land bearing Survey No.55/1/M-3 having area 0.470 hectare and Survey No. 85/5 having area 0.627 hectare in village Kheriya Mritya, Tehsil and district Gwalior. Earlier, the said land was of the ownership of a society, named as ‘Gandhi Harijan Agriculture Cooperative Society. Harmukha was a member of the society. On account of dissolution of the society, the lease of the aforesaid land was granted in favour of Harmukha son of Samle. The appellant purchased the aforesaid land from Harmukha vide registered sale-deeds dated 15.01.2008 and 05.04.2008. Thereafter, the appellant submitted an application for mutation before Patwari, who forwarded the same to Tehsildar, Gwalior. During pendency of the mutation proceedings appellant submitted an application before Nazul Officer, district Gwalior for grant of ‘No Objection Certificate.’
3. During pendency of the mutation application the appellant came to know the fact that seller, Harmukha son of Samle, had not received permission from the Government under section 165 (7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code for transfer of the land, hence, the appellant submitted an application before the Collector on 26.08.2008 for ratification the transfer and validation of the transaction. On 15.09.2008 the appellant further submitted another application for permission / ratification. That application was marked to the Tehsildar and thereafter, Tahsildar registered case No.245/2008-09/B121.
4. In the meanwhile one Pushpendra Singh Senger made a complaint to the Collector in regard to forged registration of land of poor scheduled castes agriculturists by the Land-Mafias. On the afore said application the Collector registered a case in suo motu revision and issued a show cause notice to the appellant.
5. In the meanwhile, appellant filed a writ petition before this Court. The appellant also filed reply before the Collector and after considering the reply vide order dated 14.01.2010 the Collector set aside the sale-deeds executed in favour of the appellant and ordered registration of First information Report against the appellant. Thereafter, appellant amended the petition, which was pending before the Writ Court and also challenged the order passed by the Collector dated 14.02.2010. The aforesaid petition has been rejected by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant purchased the land bonafide and the land was recorded as Bhumiswami in the Khasra entries and in Bhu-Adhikar Evam Rin-Pustika of Harmukha, hence, the transaction of the appellant was bonafide and the Collector ought to have exercised its power for ratification of the transaction. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Collector had no power and authority to take the matter in suo motu revision. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments :-
(1) Ranveer Singh and others vs. State of M.P., 2010 (3) JLJ 77 = 2010 (4) MPLJ 178 = AIR 2011 MP 27;
(2) Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & others, (2 -7) 11 SCC 447;
(3) Sultana Begum Vs. Premchand Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373 = AIR 1997 SC 1006;
(4) CIT Vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57; and
(5) State of Bihar vs. Yogendra Singh, (1982) 1 SCC 664 = AIR 1982 SC 882.
7. It is an admitted fact that no permission had been taken by Harmukha son of Samle Jatav under Section 165 (7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before sale of the aforesaid land. The provision of Section 165 (7-b) has been quoted by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned, which is as under :-
“(7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sectio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
