2012 Supreme(MP) 566

¼mPp U;k;ky;½ (HIGH COURT)
U;k- ,l- ds- xaxsys
S.K. Gangele, J.
vk/kqfud x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr e;kZ- fo- e-iz- jkT; rFkk ,d vU;
Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Mydt. v. State of M.P.
and another
fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 8414 lu~ 2011] 8417@11] 8540@11] 7710@11] 7782@11] 7783@11 rFkk 7877 lu~ 2011 ¼Xokfy;j½% dysDVj] Xokfy;j }kjk Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k izdj.k Øekad 97@2010&11 esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 11-11-2011 ds fo#)(
fu.khZr fnukad 2-11-2012A
Writ Petition No. 8414 of 2011, 8417/11, 8540/11, 7710/11, 7782/11, 7783/11, and 7877 of 2011 (Gwalior); against order dated 11.11.2011 passed by Collector, Gwalior in suo motu revision case No. 97/2010-11;
Decided on 2.11.2012.

Headnote:¼1½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ rFkk 158¼3½ & dk ykxw gksuk & mica/kksa ds var% LFkkiu ls iwoZ iV~Vk rFkk HkwfeLokeh vf/kdkj iznku fd;s x;s & fcuk vuqefr ds Hkwfe dk varj.k & mica/kksa dks Hkwry{kh izHkko ughaa fn;k x;k & mica/k vkdf”kZr ugha gksrs & HkwfeLokeh dk varj.k dk vf/kdkj fufgr vf/kdkj gSA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr% 1959 dh lafgrk dh /kkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ esa ;g mYys[k ugha gS fd ;g Hkwrya{kh :i ls izHkkoh gksxhA /kkjk ds mica/kksa ls ;g Li”V gS fd ;g HkwfeLokeh }kjk vftZr fufgr vf/kdkj Nhurh gS rFkk Hkwfe ds foØ; ds fo”k; esa dyDVj ls iwoZ vuqefr ysus ds laca/k esa u;k nkf;Ro l`ftr djrh gS ;k u;k drZO; vf/kjksfir djrh gS] vr,o] /kkjk Hkwry{kh izorZu gksus dh mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrhA ewy iV~Vk /kkjdksa uker% eq[R;kj flag] lkgc flag rFkk fot; flag dks 1980 ds iwoZ tks vf/kdkj HkwfeLokeh ds :i esa iznku fd, Fks os lafgrk ds mi;ZqDr mica/kksa }kjk Nhus ugha tk ldrsA HkwfeLokeh dks Hkwfe foØ; djus dk fufgr vf/kdkj Fkk rFkk muds vf/kdkj 1959 dh lafgrk dh /kkjk 165¼7&[k½ ds var% LFkkiu ls mUeqDr rFkk vizHkkfor gSaA ogh fLFkfr 1959 dh lafgrk dh /kkjk 158¼3½ ds laca/k esa gS D;ksfd ;g 28-10-1992 ds la’kks/ku }kjk var% LFkkfir dh xbZ FkhA ¼2004½ 8 ,l-lh-lh- 1] ,-vkb-vkj- 1995 ,l-lh- 1012 vuqlfjrA 1976 jk-fu- 146 ¾ 1976 ts-,y-ts- 278 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] ¼2003½ 3 ,l-lh-lh- 668 rFkk ¼2005½ 10 ,l-lh-lh 124 foosfprA 2002 jk-fu- 250 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 28

       ¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & dk fl)kar & uohu mica/k dk var% LFkkiu & Hkwry{kh izHkko ugha fn;k x;k & ,sls mica/k dh Hkwry{kh izHkkoh gksus dh mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼2004½ 8 ,l-lh-lh- 1 rFkk ,-vkb-vkj- 1995 ,l-lh- 1012 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 25 ls 28

       ¼3½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-Á-½ & 50 & Loizsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k ‘kfDr;k¡ & dk iz;ksx & iqujh{k.k izkf/kdkjh us ;g mYys[k ugha fd;k fd lafgrk ds fdlh mica/k ds mYya?ku ds fo”k; esa tkudkjh esa dc vk;k & 180 fnol ls ckgj ,slh ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 2010 jk-fu- 409 ¾ 2010¼3½ ts- ,y-ts- 77 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 29

       ¼4½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-Á-½ & /kkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ & dh O;kfIRk & iV~Vsnkj dks iV~Vk rFkk HkwfeLokeh vf/kdkj iznku fd, x, & dyDVj dh vuqKk ds fcuk Hkwfe dk varj.k & /kkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ ds v/khu iV~Vk jn~n ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr% 1959 dh lafgrk dh /kkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ ds v/khu iV~Vk jn~n djus dk dksbZ mica/k ugha gSA ;g /kkjk dsoy ;g dgrh gS fd Hkwfe Lokeh dks dyDVj dh iwoZ vuqKk ds fcuk Hkwfe dk foØ; djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA bl izdj.k esa] dyDVj us 40 o”kZ i’pkr~ iÍk jn~n fd;k gS tks o”kZ 1972 essa iznku fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk tSlk fd vkns’k esa mYys[k gS fd vusd O;fD;ksa }kjk Hkwfe Ø; dh xbZ gS] ijUrq dyDVj }kjk mudks lwpuki= ugh ugha fn, x,A ¼iSjk 31

       ¼5½ iwoZ fu.kZ; & ykxw gksus dk fl)kar & iwoZ fu.kZ; & izdj.k ds fof’k”V rF;ksa ls ykxw djuk gksrk gS & rF;ksa esa dqN gh ifjorZu n`’;ys[k ifjofrZr dj ldrk gSA 2002 jk-fu- 250 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 32

       ¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 rFkk 227 & dh O;kfIr & vuqdYih mipkj & mRizs”k.k fjV ds fy, otZu ugha gSA ¼iSjk 33

       (1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 165 (7-b) and 158 (3) -- applicability of -- lease and Bhumiswami rights granted prior to insertion of the provisions -- transfer of land without permission -- no retrospective effect given to the provisions -- provisions not attracted -- right of transfer of Bhumiswami is vested right.

       Held: There is no mention in section 165(7-b) of the Code of 1959 to the effect that it would apply retrospectively. It is clear from the provisions of the section that it takes away the vested rights acquired by a Bhumiswami and it creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty in regard to taking prior permission from the Collector in the event of sale of the land, hence, the section could not be presumed to be retrospective in operation. The rights, which were granted to the original lease holders namely Mukhtyar Singh, Saheb Singh and Vijay Singh prior to 1980 as Bhumiswami could not be taken away by the provisions of the aforesaid code. A Bhumiswami had a vested right to sell the land and their rights are unfettered and unaffected by introduction of section 165 (7-b) of the Code of 1959. The same position is in regard to section 158 (3) of the Code of 1959 because it was introduced by way of amendment dt. 28.10.1992. (2004) 8 SCC 1, AIR 1995 SC 1012 followed. 1976 RN 146 = 1976 JLJ 278 (FB), (2003) 3 SCC 668 and (2005) 10 SCC 124 discussed. 2002 RN 250 distinguished. [Para 28

       (2) Interpretation of Statutes -- principle of -- insertion of new provision -- no retrospective effect given -- operation of such provision cannot be presumed to be retrospective. (2004) 8 SCC 1 and AIR 1995 SC 1012 followed. [Paras 25 to 28

       (3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 50 -- suo motu revisional powers -- exercise of -- it is not mentioned that revisional authority when came to know about violation of any provision of Code -- such powers cannot be exercised beyond period of 180 days. 2010 RN 409 = 2010(3) JLJ 77 (FB) relied on. [Para 29

       (4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 165 (7-b) -- scope of -- Patta and Bhumiswami rights granted to lessee -- transfer of land without permission of Collector -- Patta cannot be cancelled under section 165 (7-b).

       Held: there is no provision under section 165 (7-b) of the Code of 1959 to cancel the patta. This section only says that the Bhumiswami has no right to sale the land without prior permission of the Collector. In the present case, the Collector has cancelled the pattas, which were granted in the year 1972 after a period of 40 years and number of persons had purchased the land as mentioned in the order, but they were not noticed by the Collector. [Para 31

       (5) Precedent -- principle of applicability -- earlier judgment -- has to be applied in particular facts of case -- little change in facts can change the scenario. 2002 RN 250 distinguished. [Para 32

       (6) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- scope of -- alternative remedy -- no bar for writ of certiorari. [Para 33