Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
Ramesh Chandra and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Vinod Bhargav and Others – Respondents
M. P. No. 3452 of 2019
Decided On : 04-09-2019
Land Revenue Code - Government Land - Sections 158(3), 165(7-b) - The court held that the sale deed executed in favor of Smt. Vidhyadevi was void ab initio as it violated the mandatory provisions of section 165(7-b) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. The court directed the Collector to immediately take possession of the land in dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were granted a 'Patta' for a piece of government land, which they subsequently sold without obtaining permission from the Collector. The respondents claimed rights based on the sale deed executed in their favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed executed by the petitioners was void ab initio due to violation of the mandatory provisions of section 165(7-b) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. The court directed the Collector to take possession of the land.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the sale deed executed by the petitioners and the rights claimed by the respondents based on the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of sections 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, which prohibit the transfer of government land without permission from the Collector. The court also emphasized the welfare nature of the legislation and the intention to protect landless persons from exploitation.
Final Decision: The court held the sale deed executed by the petitioners as void ab initio and directed the Collector to take possession of the land in dispute.
JUDGMENT :
1. Shri N. K. Gupta, Senior Counsel with Shri Sanjay Sharma, Counsel for the petitioners.
Shri K. S. Tomar, Senior Counsel with Shri Neerendra Sharma, Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order 20th June, 2019 (Annexure P1) passed by Board of Revenue in Review No. 5500/2018/Shivpuri/Land Revenue, order dated 24th August, 2018 (Annexure P2) passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No. 1208-3/2011 and order dated 9-5-2008 (Annexure P3) passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Karera, District Shivpuri in Case No. 28/2007-2008/A-6.
3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the land bearing Survey No. 4662, area 1.00 hectare situated in Village Sirsod, Tahsil Karera, District Shivpuri was allotted to the petitioner No. 1 on “Patta” by competent authority vide “Patta” dated 22-6-1999 and possession was handed over to the petitioner No. 1 and it is claimed that the petitioner No. 1 is still in possession of the said land and is enjoying the fruits thereof being the lessee of the land. The copy of the lease deed/Patta has been annexed as Annexure P4.
4. It was pleaded that one application was filed by Smt. Vidhyadevi for mutation of her name on the basis of lease deed purportedly executed by the petitioners in her favour. It was further pleaded that the Tahsildar without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without giving any opportunity of hearing, mutated the name of Smt. Vidhyadevi vide order dated 9-5-2008. It was further pleaded that the Tahsildar should not have mutated the name of Smt. Vidhyadevi because in the revenue record it was specifically mentioned that the land is non-transferable.
5. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the SDO, Karera, District Shivpuri against the order of Tahsildar, which was allowed by order dated 1-7-2009 (Annexure P7) and the order of the Tahsildar was set aside by the SDO. Thereafter, second appeal was filed by Smt. Vidhyadvi and the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior dismissed the appeal by order dated 18th July, 2011 (Annexure P8) and affirmed the order passed by SDO, Karera, District Shivpuri.
6. The order of the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior was challenged by respondents No. 1 and 2, who are legal representatives of Smt. Vidhyadevi. The Board of Revenue by order dated 24-8-2018 (Annexure P2) set aside the order dated 18th July, 2011 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior and the order dated 1st July, 2009 passed by SDO, Karera, District Shivpuri respectively and held that these authorities have failed to notice that the word “non-transferable” was already deleted in the year 2002, therefore, there was no impediment for the petitioners to alienate the property.
7. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a review petition against the order dated 24th August, 2018 (Annexure P2) and the same has also stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 20th June, 2019 (Annexure P1).
8. Challenging the orders passed by the Board of Revenue as well as the Tahsildar, Tahsil Karera, District Shivpuri, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners are illiterate and rustic villagers and merely because they had failed to challenge the genuineness and correctness of the sale deed executed in favour of Smt. Vidhyadevi, would not mean that the petitioners had not claimed any right or title in the property in dispute. It is submitted that since a “Patta” of the Government land was granted to the petitioners, therefore, the said land was non-transferable and the land can be transferred only after obtaining permission from the Collector. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that since the Government land which was given on lease to the petitioners was sold without obtaining permission from the Collector, therefore, it is void and, therefore, the sell
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
