Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Subodh Abhyankar, J.
Dinesh Kumar v. State of M.P. and Others
Miscellaneous Petition No. 3679 of 2021 (Indore): against the order dated 14.9.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain in Case No. 42(0021)/Revision/2020-21;
Decided on 3.10.2023
¼1½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 50 & Loçsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k dh 'kfä ç;qä djus d¢ fy, ifjlhek & vij dysDVj }kjk vuqKk fn, tkus d¢ i'pkr~ vkfne tutkfr }kjk Òwfe foØ; dh & xà & laKku d¢ fy, ekeyk vk;qä d¨ funsZf”kr & Loçsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k dh 'kfä tkudkjh ds fnukad ls 180 fnol d¢ Òhrj ç;qä dh tk ldrh gS & vk;qä }kjk vij dysDVj dk vkns'k 180 fnol i'pkr~ vikLr fd;k x;k & vk;qä dk ,slk vkns'k vikLrA
vfÒfuèkkZfjr% mi;qZä fofu”p; ls çdV gS fd iqujh{k.k çkfèkdkjh }kjk lu~ 1959 dh lafgrk dh èkkjk 50 d¢ vèkhu Loçsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k dh 'kfä voSèkrk ;k vu©fpR; dh tkudkjh d¢ fnukad ls 180 fnol dh vofèk d¢ Òhrj ç;qä dh tk ldrh gSA orZeku ekeys esa] dysDVj us èkkjk ¼6&[k½ d¢ vèkhu viuh 'kfä dk ç;¨x ugÈ fd;k gS] rFkkfi] mUg¨aus vDVwcj 2018 d¢ ekl esa Òsts x, vius i= d¢ ekè;e ls ekeys d¨ vk;qä d¨ lanfÒZr dj fn;k] tcfd vk;qä }kjk vafre vkns'k 14-9-2021 dks vFkkZr~ 3 o"kZ 5 ekl dh vofèk d ¢ i'pkr~ ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ;g Òh ik;k x;k fd vk;qä }kjk 4-2-2019 d¨ ;kph v©j çR;FkÊx.k d¨ dkj.k crkv¨ lwpuki= tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] v©j ;kph us 23-9-2019 d¨ viuk foLr`r mRrj çLrqr dj fn;k Fkk tcfd çR;FkÊx.k Øekad 2 ls 5 us viuk mRrj 24-9-2019 d¨ çLrqr dj fn;k Fkk] v©j mld¢ ckn vk;qä dks vafre vkns'k ikfjr djus esa yxÒx 2 o"kZ ls vfèkd dk le; yxk] t¨ 14-9-2023 d¨ ikfjr fd;k x;kA bl çdkj vkns'k Li"V :i ls 180 fnol dh vofèk ls ij ikfjr fd;k x;k v©j vk{ksfir vkns'k d¢oy blh vkèkkj ij vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA ¼iSjk 13½
çdVr%] 26-3-2018 d¨ fu"ikfnr foØ; foys[k 180 fnol dh vofèk d¢ i'pkr~ jn~n fd;k x;k gS] ftlls fuf'pr :i ls u d¢oy ;kph d¨ cfYd çR;FkÊx.k Øekad 2 ls 5 foØsrkv¨a d¨ Òh viw.kÊ; {kfr ,oa gkfu dkfjr gksxh] ftUg¨aus igys gh viuh larqf"V d¢ fy, iwjh jde çkIr dj yh gS v©j ftldk mi;¨x mud¢ }kjk vc rd fd;k tk pqdk g¨xkA ¼iSjk 14½
,slh ifjfLFkfr esa] vk;qä] mTtSu laÒkx] mTtSu }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 14-9-2021 fofèk dh n`f"V ls fLFkj ugÈ j[kk tk ldrk] çFker% bl vkèkkj ij fd og voSèkrk dh tkudkjh ds fnukad ls 180 fnol ls vfèkd le; d¢ i'pkr~ ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] v©j f}rh;r% xq.kkxq.k ij] v©j ;fn jktLo vfÒys[k esa d¨Ã ikfj.kkfed ifjorZu fd, x, gSa r¨ og myVs x,@jn~n fd, x, le>s tk,¡xs D;¨afd Òwfe igys gh 18-5-2018 d¨ ;kph d¢ uke ij ukekarfjr g¨ pqdh gSA 2010 jkfu 409 = 2010 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 77 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 19½
¼2½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 165 ¼6½ & feF;k laO;ogkj & vij dysDVj dh vuqefr d¢ i'pkr~ vkfne tutkfr }kjk Òwfe foØ; dh xà & cktkj ewY; ls vfèkd #- 45 yk[k cSad laO;ogkj }kjk lanRr & ,slh jde ls og larq"V & mud¢ }kjk mi;¨x dh tk pqdh g¨xh & foØ; d¢ i'pkr~ mud¢ ikl 1-850 gSDVs;j Òwfe 'ks"k jgh & ;g ugÈ dgk tk ldrk fd ;g feF;k laO;ogkj Fkk & vij dysDVj dk vkns'k ek= blfy, vikLr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk fd mld¢ fo#) vU; foÒkxh; dk;Zokfg;k¡ lafLFkr dh xbZ gSaA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15½
¼3½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 165 ¼6½ rFkk 165 ¼7½ & vfèkdkfjrk & dk;Z foÒktui=d fnukad 22-11-2016 }kjk vij dysDVj d¨ lafgrk d¢ vèkhu leLr 'kfä;k¡ l©aiÈ xÃa & Kkiu fnukad 19-4-2018 }kjk dysDVj us lafgrk dh èkkjk 24] 30] 237] 240] 241] 247 ¼3½ ,oa 247 ¼5½ d¢ vèkhu 'kfä;k¡ Lo;a ds ikl j[kÈ & vij dysDVj }kjk foØ; dh vuqefr çnku dh xà & 'kCn ^^vfèklwpuk^^ dk funsZ'k d¢oy Òwfe v©j tutkfr d¢ fo"k; esa gS & vk;qä dk fu"d"kZ fd dysDVj d¨ èkkjk 165 ¼6½ d¢ vèkhu 'kfä;k¡ l©aius d¢ fy, i`Fkd~@fofufnZ"V vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS] =qfViw.kZ gS & vk;qä dk ,slk vkns'k vikLr fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 16] 17 ,oa 19½
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 50 -- limitation for exercising sou motu revisional powers -- land sold by aboriginal tribe after permission granted by Additional Collector -- matter referred to Commissioner for cognizance -- suo motu revisional power can be exercised within 180 days from date of knowledge -- order of Additional Collector set aside by Commissioner after 180 days -- such order of Commissioner set aside.
Held : It is apparent from the aforesaid decision that the suo motu powers can be exercised by the revisional authority under section 50 of the Code of 1959 within a period of 180 days from the date of the knowledge of illegality or impropriety. In the present case, the Collector has not exercised his power under section (6-b), however, he has referred the matter to the Commissioner vide his letter sent in the month of October 2018, whereas, the final order has been passed by the Commissioner on 14.9.2021 i.e. after a period of 3 years and 5 months. It is also found that the petitioner and respondents were issued show cause notice on 4.2.2019 by the Commissioner, and the petitioner filed his detailed reply on 23.9.2019, whereas the respondents No. 2 to 5 filed their reply on 24.9.2019, and thereafter it took more than around 2 years to the Commissioner to pass the final order which was passed on 14.9.2021. Thus, the order was clearly passed beyond the period of 180 days, and on this ground only, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. [Para 13
Apparently, the sale deed which was executed on 26.3.2018 has been cancelled after a period of 180 days which is surely going to cause irreparable injury and harm not only to the petitioner, but also to respondents No. 2 to 5, the sellers, who have already obtained the entire amount to their satisfaction and which must have been utilised by them by now. [Para 14
In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 14.9.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, firstly on the ground that it has been passed after more than 180 days from the date of the knowledge of illegality, and secondly on its merits, and if any consequential changes have been made in the revenue record, the same shall also stand reversed/cancelled as the land has already been mutated in the name of the petitioner on 18.5.2018. 2010 RN 409 = 2010 (3) JLJ 77 relied on. [Para 19
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 165 (6) -- sham transaction -- land sold by aboriginal tribe after permission from Additional Collector -- Rs. 45 lakhs more than market value paid through bank transaction -- such amount obtained their satisfaction -- must have been utilised by them -- 1.850 hectare land remained with them after sale -- it cannot be said that it was sham transaction -- order of Additional Collector cannot be set aside only because other departmental inquiries have been initiated against him. [Paras 14 & 15
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 165 (6) and 165 (7) -- jurisdiction -- all powers under Code assigned to Additional Collector by work distribution memo dated 22.11.2016 -- vide memo dated 19.4.2018, Collector kept to himself powers under sections 24, 30, 237, 240, 241, 247 (3) and 247 (5) of Code -- permission to sell granted by Additional Collector -- reference of word ''Notification'' is in respect of land and tribe only -- finding of Commissioner that separate/specific order is required to be passed by Collector to assign powers under section 165 (6), is erroneous -- such order of Commissioner set aside. [Paras 16, 17 & 19
ORDER
1. This misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.9.2021, passed in Case No.42(0021)/Revision/2020-21 by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain (M.P.) whereby the Commissioner while exercising his suo motu revisional power under section 50 and section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code of 1959’), has set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Ratlam dated 21.3.2018, by which, the permission under section 165(6) of the Code of 1959 for sale of the land of respondents No.2 to 5 was granted and subsequently the registered sale deed was also executed on 26.3.2018.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of Ratlam and had purchased the land bearing survey No.47/8, 47/9, 47/12, 47/14, 47/19 and 47/2 admeasuring 4.440 hectare, situated at village Bhatibhadodia, Tehsil and District Ratlam, through a registered sale deed dated 26.3.2018. The aforesaid lands were purchased by the petitioner from respondents No.2 to 5 who belong to aboriginal tribe of the area. The sale deed was executed after taking permission as provided under section 165(6)(a) of the Code of 1959, and subsequently the sale deed has been executed on 26.3.2018, however, the aforesaid matter came to be opened initially by the Collector vide its order passed in the month of October, 2018, observing that there appears to be some lapses on the part of the Additional Collector in following the procedure as provided under section 165(6) of the Code of 1959, and it is also mentioned that no reasons have been assigned for allowing the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, thus, the matter was recommended to the Commissioner to initiate suo motu revision of the matter under section 50(b) of the Code of 1959. Thereafter, before the Commissioner, the matter came up for hearing on 20.11.2018, and after giving notice to the petitioner, the Commissioner has passed the order on 14.9.2020, in which, he has found that the land was sold by respondents No.2 to 5 for a consideration of Rs.45 Lakhs, and also observing that on perusal of the record, on the application filed by the respondent No.2 to 5, u/s 5(6), the first order was passed on 26.2.2018 by Tehsildar in which there is no mention of issuing any publication of proclamation, however, the proclamation which has been issued, there appears to be some interpolation in the date, and in the aforesaid order, it was also directed that the report from Patwari be called, and the next date was fixed on 16.3.2018, however, in the next proceeding, there is no date mentioned. It is also found that the Tehsildar and the SDO have not mentioned the date in their proceedings, and thus, the Commissioner concluded that the aforesaid proceeding was erroneous and held that the grant of permission to sell the land could not have been allowed. The Commissioner also found that in their application, the respondents No.2 to 5 mentioned that the land is of no use to them, which does not appear to be correct as the land would still remain in the same village, and in their affidavits, they have mentioned the land to be unirrigated, whereas, as per the report of the Patwari annexed with the record, the land is stated to be irrigated, having a well and tube-well, and thus, came to a conclusion that the applicant had filed a false affidavit. The Commissioner also found that the revenue record also revealed that the plaintiffs are cultivating the land since last many years and there was no reason for them to sell the land, and the Additional Collector has wrongly accepted their application. The commissioner also concluded that there was no justification for respondents No.2 to 5 to sell the land to further develop the remaining land held by them. The Commissioner also found that in the work distribution memo dated 19.5.2017, issued by the Collector, the Additional Collector Shr
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for permission from the Collector for the transfer of government land, as stipulated in Section 165(7-b) of the Land Revenue Code, ....
Sale deeds executed without prior permission under Section 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act are invalid and cannot be regularized post facto.
The power to initiate proceedings under Section 9 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 is subject to the principles of natural justice and the requirement....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation period for exercising suo-motu revisional power and the validity of a sale deed executed without permission from the Collector.
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
