Aishwarya Verma vs State of M. P. - 2023 Supreme(MP) 357

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(MP) 357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia, J.
Aishwarya Verma v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 11153 of 2022 with Writ Petitions No. 11164 of 2022, 11166 of 2022, 11232 of 2022, 11420 of 2022, 11483 of 2022, 11486 of 2022, 11547 of 2022, 11632 of 2022, 11818 of 2022 and 13721 of 2022 (Indore); Decided on 23.8.2023

Advocates:
Rohit Kumar Mangal, Vivek Phadke, Sameer Anant Athawale, Veer Kumar Jain, Navneet Kumar Verma, Prateek Patwardhan and Mayank Purohit for petitioners; Kushal Goyal, Dy. Advocate General for res-pondents/State; Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi for respondent No. 4.

Headnote:
¼1½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 165 ¼6½] 165 ¼6½&d] 165 ¼6½&[k rFkk 170 & 'kfä dh O;kfIr & dysDVj d¢ le{k èkkjk 165 ¼6½ d¢ vèkhu vkosnu & dysDVj us vfÒfuèkkZfjr fd;k fd èkkjk 170 d¢ vèkhu vkfne tutkfr d¢ i{k esa dCtk çR;kofrZr fd, tkus ;¨X; gS & ,sls vkns'k d¢ vuqikyu esa mi[kaM vfèkdkjh }kjk dkj.k crkv¨ lwpuk tkjh & vfÒfuèkkZfjr & dysDVj us foØ; laO;ogkj ds vuqleFkZu ls bUdkj djus d¢ fy, mièkkjk ¼6&d½ rFkk ¼6&[k½ d¢ vèkhu 'kfä ç;qä ugÈ dh blfy, foØ; 'kwU; Ä¨f"kr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk rFkk mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¨ dCtk ysus d¢ fy, funs'k ugÈ fn;k tk ldrk & dysDVj esa ,slh 'kfä d¢oy èkkjk 165 dh mièkkjk ¼6&d½ rFkk ¼6&[k½ d¢ vèkhu fufgr gS & dysDVj dk vkns'k rFkk mi[kaM vfèkdkjh }kjk tkjh lwpuki= vikLrA ¼iSjk 16 rFkk 19½
¼2½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 170 rFkk 165 ¼6½ & vfèkdkfjrk & dysDVj dh vuqKk d¢ fcuk foØ; laO;ogkj & dysDVj }kjk voSèk Ä¨f"kr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk & èkkjk 170 d¢ vèkhu mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¢ le{k vkosnu çLrqr fd;k tkuk visf{kr & mi[kaM vfèkdkjh ijh{k.k dj ldrk Fkk fd ,slk laO;ogkj èkkjk 165 ¼6½ d¢ vèkhu çfrf"k) gS ;k ugÈA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 18½
¼3½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 170 rFkk 165 ¼6½ & ifjlhek rFkk vfèkdkfjrk & fnukad 1-7-1976 d¢ iwoZ dk foØ; laO;ogkj & o"kZ 2021 esa èkkjk 165 ¼6½ d¢ vèkhu dysDVj d¢ le{k vkosnu çLrqr & dysDVj us Ä¨f"kr fd;k fd èkkjk 165 ¼6½ dk vuqikyu ugÈ fd;k x;k rFkk foØ; voSèk gS & mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¨ Òwfe dk dCtk lkSaius d¢ fy, dne mBkus dk funs'k fn;k & èkkjk 170 ¼1½ d¢ [kaM ¼,d½ rFkk ¼n¨½ d¢ vuqlkj mi[kaM vfèkdkjh dh 'kfä lhfer gS rFkk ifjlhek ls ifj#) gS & ifjlhek d¢ Òhrj mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¢ le{k vkosnu çLrqr fd;k tkuk visf{kr Fkk -- mi[kaM vfèkdkjh ijh{k.k dj ldrk Fkk fd ,slk laO;ogkj èkkjk 165 ¼6½ d¢ vèkhu çfrf’k) gS ;k ugÈA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 18½
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- Ss. 165 (6), 165 (6-a), 165 (6-b) and 170 -- scope of powers -- application under section 165 (6) before Collector -- Collector held that possession is liable to be restored in favour of aboriginal tribe under section 170 -- show cause notice issued by SDO in compliance of such order -- held -- Collector has not exercised power under sub-sections (6-a) and (6-b) to deny ratification of sale therefore sale cannot be declared void and no direction can be issued to SDO for taking possession -- such powers are vested with Collector under sub-sections (6-a) and (6-b) of section 165 only -- order of Collector and notice issued by SDO set aside. [Paras 16 & 19
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- Ss. 170 and 165 (6) -- jurisdiction -- sale transaction without permission of Collector -- cannot be declared illegal by Collector -- application required to be filed before SDO under section 170 -- SDO could have examined whether such transaction is prohibited under section 165 (6). [Paras 17 & 18
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- Ss. 170 and 165 (6) -- limitation and jurisdiction -- sale transaction prior to 1.7.1976 -- application under section 165 (6) filed before Collector in year 2021 -- Collector declared that there is no compliance of section 165 (6) and sale is illegal -- directed SDO to take step of handing over possession of land -- powers of SDO are limited and confined to limitation as per clauses (i) and (ii) of section 170 (1) -- application was required to be filed before SDO within limitation -- SDO could have examined that such transaction is prohibited under section 165 (6). [Paras 17 & 18

ORDER

As the controversy involved in these petitions is identical, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in W.P. No.11153/2022 are taken into consideration.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by an order dated 25.4.2022 passed by Collector, Dewas u/s. 165(6) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and also against the show-cause notice dated 28.4.2022 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub Division Dewas, District Dewas.

Facts of the case

1. According to the petitioner, land bearing Survey No. 258 area 1.914 Hect. situated at Village Rasulpura was recorded in the name of Shaukat Ali which is evident from Khasra Panchsala. The said land was sold to M/s. Quality Bricks by Shaukat Ali on 14.6.1978. On 15.1.1982 it was sold M/s. Quality Bricks to M/s. Pricission Machinery Co. Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the name of the purchasers were mutated in the Khasra Panchsala and that continued up to 1992-93. Vide sale-deed dated 15.4.1997 the said land was sold by M/s. Pricission Machinery Co. Pvt. Ltd. to Smt. Manju Agrawal and accordingly her name was mutated in the revenue record, and it continued up to 2007-2008. On 21.3.2003, area 0.924 Hect. out of Survey No. 258 was acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 09/A-82/2001-02 and the compensation was awarded in favour of Smt. Manju Agrawal. A part of Survey No. 258/2 was diverted at the instance of Smt. Manju Agrawal vide order dated 30.4.2008. Vide registered sale-deed dated 24.7.2020, the present petitioner purchased the land admeasuring area 0.022 Hect. from Smt. Manju Agrawal and accordingly his name was mutated in the revenue record on 14.9.2020.

2. According to Respondent No.4 his father Gheesalal was Bhil by caste which is a Scheduled Tribe, he was dispossessed from the said land but he could not resist his dispossession. After the death of his father, respondent No.4 became owner and submitted an application before the collector that the land bearing Survey Nos. 159, 160, 162, 163, 252, 253, 255, 258, and 295 were owned by his father late Gheesalal but some land mafias had encroached on the said land and illegally got mutated their names in the revenue record which is contrary to section 167 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Under the fear for a period of long time, he could not take any step to get above the land back. But after the death of his father, his name is liable to be mutated and now he came to know that encroachers are trying to alienate the aforesaid land to others.

3. The Collector entertainer the application by registering as a case No. 0014/B-121/2021-2022. The collector directed the Sub Divisional Officer to obtain the report from the Revenue Inspector and Halka Patwari along with the map. After obtaining the report from the Sub Divisional Officer, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to others (the petitioners in others connected Writ Petitions) who had purchased various parts of Survey Nos. 159, 160, 162, 163, 252, 253, 255, 258, 295 at different points of time. The petitioner submitted the reply stating that he purchased the land by way of registered sale-deed from the registered owner who is not an aboriginal tribe, therefore, no permission was required u/s. 165(6) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

4. Learned Collector vide order dated 25.4.2022 has held that the petitioners have not acquired any title as before purchasing the land in question no permission was obtained under section 165(6) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore, the possession of the land is liable to be restored in favour of respondent No.4 by drawing the proceedings Section 170 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order of the Collector, the Sub Divisional Officer issued the show-cause notices to the petitioner to submit the reply, failing which, ex-parte proceedings shall be drawn. The petitioner has rushed to this Court by way of present writ petiti