The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of land without prior permission from the Collector under section 165(7-b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code is void ab initio, and the cancellation of the entry in the revenue record by the Sub Divisional Officer was lawful. Additionally, the petitioner, despite being a witness to the sale agreement, was not entitled to the benefits of the void transaction.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit Arya, J.

1. The controversy involved in this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India revolves around the scope, limit and dimensions of the provision contained under section 165(7-b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'the Code'). For ready reference the provision is quoted below:

"165. Rights of transfer.- (1) subject to the other provisions of this section and the provision of section 168 a bhumiswami may transfer any interest in his land.

… … …

(7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a person who holds land from the State Government or a person who holds land in bhumiswami rights under sub-section (3) of Section 158 or whom right to occupy land is granted by the State Government or the Collector as a Government lessee and who subsequently becomes bhumiswami of such land, shall not transfer such land without the permission of a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of a Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing."

(Emphasis supplied)

and collaterally section 158(3) of the Code. The relevant provision is quoted below:

"158. Bhumiswami. (1) Every person who at the time of coming into force of this Code, belongs to any of the following classes shall be called a bhumiswami and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon a bhumiswami by or under this Code, namely … … …

(3) Every person-

(i) who is holding land in bhumiswami right by virtue of a lease granted to him by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer on or before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of such commencement, and

(ii) to whom land is allotted in bhumiswami right by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer after the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of such allotment,

shall be deemed to be a bhumiswami in respect of such land and shall be subject to all the rights and liabilities conferred and imposed upon a bhumiswami by or under this Code:

Provided that no such person shall transfer such land within a period of ten years from the date of lease or allotment and thereafter may transfer such land with the permission obtained under sub-section (7-b) of section 165.

Explanation.-In this section, the expression "Ruler" and "Indian State" shall have the same meanings as are assigned to these expressions in clauses (22) and (15) respectively by Article 366 of the Constitution of India."

2. Agricultural land falling in survey No. 465/40 admeasuring 2.023 hectare village Khilchipur, tehsil Khilchipur, District Rajgarh was leased out/patta to late Kishanlal s/o Nathulal Jatav in the year 1966-67 (for short, 'agricultural land') by the State Government. After his demise, the name of his son Narayan Jatav was mutated in the revenue record vide entry No. 40/93-94 dated 30/12/1993. The mutation record suggests that on 10/01/1994, bhumiswami rights were conferred upon him. Vide registered sale deed dated 01/03/1994; the agricultural land was transferred by Narayan Jatav in favour of Jai Prakash (respondent No. 5). However, the statutory prior permission as contemplated under section 165(7-b) of the Code was not obtained from the Collector.

Pursuant to the aforesaid sale, the name of respondent No. 5 was recorded in the revenue record at sl. No. 74 on 02/04/1994.

The Collector, Rajgarh had issued an order on 13/01/2012 directing the competent revenue authorities to check and verify such transaction of transfer of agricultural lands without obtaining prior permission under section 165(7-b) of the Code.

3. Petitioner is heir/successor of Narayan Jatav. On 02/11/2012, he submitted a complaint before the Sub Divisional Officer that the mutation/entry dated 02/04/1994 in favour of respondent No. 5 be cancelled as the sale deed dated 02/04/1994 was in violation of the provision contained under section 165(7-