Gopal vs Mangilal - 2021 Supreme(MP) 603

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Gopal & Others v. Mangilal & Others
Writ Petition No. 12300 of 2021 (Gwalior): against the order dated 21.5.2021 passed by the M.P. Board of Revenue, Gwalior; Decided on 5.10.2021

Advocates:
K.N. Gupta with Praveen Newaskar for petitioners; Devendra Choubey, Government Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5/State.

Headnote:
¼1½ Òwnku ;K vfèkfu;e] 1968 ¼eŒçŒ½ & vfèkfu;e dk mn~ns’; & Òwnku ;K ds fy, Òwfe nku djus lacaèkh fofèk lesfdr vkSj la’k¨fèkr djus ds fy, fgrdkjh foèkku & Òwnku ;K Òwfeghu xjhc O;fDr;¨a d¨ ,oa lkeqnkf;d ç;¨tu¨a d¢ fy, ,slh Òwfe forfjr djus d¢ fy, vkpk;Z fou¨ck Òkos }kjk vkjaHk fd;k x;k FkkA ¼iSjk 13½
¼2½ Òwnku ;K vfèkfu;e] 1968 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 30 rFkk 33 & varj.k dk vfèkdkj & èkkjd èkkjk 33 d¢ vèkhu ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj vftZr dj ys rc Hkh og èkkjk 30 esa ;Fkk micafèkr d¢ flok; Òwfe dk d¨Ã fgr varfjr ugha dj ldrk & Òwfe d¢ vU; laØe.k d¢ fy, vfèkfu;e esa fofufnZ"Vr% d¨Ã micaèk ugha fd;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 19½
¼3½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 165 ¼7&d½ & eŒçŒ Òwnku ;K vfèkfu;e] 1968 & èkkjk 33 & Òwnku èkkjd d¨ ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj ç¨n~Òwr & varj.k dk vfèkdkj & Òwfe dk d¨Ã fgr varfjr djus ds vfèkdkj dh ladYiuk lafgrk dh /kkjk 165 ¼7&?k½ ls yh tkuk gksxh & ml micaèk esa Òh dysDVj ls vuqKk vuq/;kr gS & foØ; dh vuqKk ugha yh xÃ & dk;Zokgh vkjaHk ls gh 'kwU;A ¼iSjk 20 ,oa 21½
¼4½ fofèk dk fuoZpu & fo’ks"k ,oa lkekU; fofèk d¢ e/; fookn & fo’ks"k dkuwu ¼bl çdj.k esa eŒçŒ Òwnku ;K vfèkfu;e] 1968½ lkekU; fofèk ¼eŒçŒ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959½ ij vfÒÒkoh g¨xkA ¼2005½ 4 ,l lh lh 613 rFkk ¼2010½ 4 ,l lh lh 498 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 26½
¼5½ diV & çÒko & diViw.kZ varj.k & leLr lR;fu"B dk;Zokfg;ka nwf"kr gks tkrh gSaA ¼2021½ 11 ,l lh lh 574 ,oa ¼2019½ 14 ,l lh lh 449 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 23½
¼6½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 165 ¼7&d½ rFkk 165 ¼7&[k½ & vuqKk dh vis{kk & vuqKk Òwnku èkkjd@foØsrk }kjk yh tkuk visf{kr gS] Øsrk }kjk ughaA ¼iSjk 25½
(1) Bhoodan Yagna Adhiniyam, 1968 (M.P.) -- object of Act -- beneficial legislation to consolidate and amend law relating to donation of lands for Bhoodan Yagna -- Bhoodan Yagna initiated by Acharya Vinoba Bhave for distribution of such land amongst landless poor persons and for community purposes. [Para 13]
(2) Bhoodan Yagna Adhiniyam, 1968 (M.P.) -- Ss. 30 and 33 -- right of transfer -- even if holder acquires Bhumiswami rights under section 33, he cannot transfer any interest in land except as provided in section 30-- no provision for alienation of land specifically made in Adhiniyam. [Para 19]
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 165 (7-A) -- M.P. Bhoodan Yagna Adhiniyam, 1968 -- S. 33 -- Bhumiswami rights accrued to Bhoodan holder -- right of transfer -- concept of right to transfer any interest in land has to be borrowed from section 165 (7-A) of Code -- even that provision contemplates permission from Collector -- permission to sell not taken -- proceedings void ab initio. [Paras 20 & 21]
(4) Interpretation of Statute -- dispute between special and general statue -- provisions of special statute (M.P. Bhoodan Yagna Adhiniyam, 1968 in present case) shall prevail over general statue (M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959). (2005) 4 SCC 613 and (2010) 4 SCC 498 referred to. [Para 26]
(5) Fraud-- effect -- fraudulent transfer -- vitiates all solemn proceedings. (2012) 11 SCC 574 and (2019) 14 SCC 449 referred to. [Para 23]
(6) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 165 (7-A) and 165 (7-B) -- requirement of permission -- permission required to be taken by Bhoodan holder/seller, not by purchaser. [Para 25]

ORDER

1. Instant petition is preferred by the petitioners under article 226 of the Constitution of India (mainly under article 227 of the Constitution of India) being crestfallen by order dated 12.5.2021 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Revenue (hereinafter shall be referred to as “Board”); whereby, appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 44(2) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “Code”) got dismissed and order dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena has been affirmed and order dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector,Sheopur has been set aside.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that at village Ichchhapura, District Sheopur, late Motilal Mali S/o Siriya Mali (father of respondent No. 1) was granted a Patta by Bhoodan Board [Constituted as per the M.P. Bhoodan Yagna Adhiniyam, 1968 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “Adhiniyam, 1968”]. It appears that land was given on Patta purportedly around or after year 1968. In year 1977, petitioners purchased the land through registered sale deed from late Motilal and that is the point of dispute existing between the parties since then.

3. According to respondent No. 1, his father Motilal Mali passed away in year 1974 itself whereas sale deed executed in 1977, therefore, sale deed executed by him allegedly in year 1977 is a forged one. In year 1977, respondent No. 1 was minor and after attaining majority, he filed an application before the Collector, District Sheopur narrating the fact of alleged execution of sale deed by his father (after his death) and according to him same was a fraud committed by the petitioners.

4. It is further submitted that disputed land was given by the Bhoodan Board on lease and therefore, same could not have been sold without the permission of Bhoodan Board / Collector but petitioners by filing false case number (Missal number), caused mutation of land record in their names and forcibly took the possession of land.

5. Collector issued notice to the petitioners over the said application and vide order dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure P/1) held that permission to sell the land has been given by the Collector on application of petitioners vide order dated 5.1.2004 and therefore, on this ground rejected the application.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena who in turn, vide order dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure P/2) set aside the order passed by the Collector and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar, Sheopur with the direction that in case any application is preferred by respondent No. 1 for mutation then proceedings of mutation be ensured.

7. Now it was the turn of the petitioners to agitate the said order before the Revenue Board. Vide order dated 3.2.2016 (Annexure P/3) appeal preferred by petitioners was dismissed by the Revenue Board, but on filing a review application by petitioners, vide order dated 16.11.2016 review was allowed and original appeal restored to its original numbers. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.5.2021 (Annexure P/4), learned Administrative Member of Revenue Board passed a detail order and dismissed the appeal preferred by petitioners under Section 44 (2) of Code.

8. It is the submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that authorities below committed an error in passing the orders Annexures P/2 to P/4 while examining the validity of sale deed dated 6.1.1977 on the basis of section 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the Code which were not existing on the date of sale deed i.e. 6.1.1977. Provisions as contained in section 158(3) of Code came into existence in year 1980 and that of section 165 (7-b) of the Code came into force in year 1992. Validity of sale deed cannot be questioned by Revenue Authorities in revenue proceedings and power lies with the Civil Court. He referred the judgment rendered by this Court in the