Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia, J.
Moin Khan & Another v. State of M. P. & Others
Writ Petitions No. 10549 of 2022, 10545 of 2022, 10567 of 2022 and 10572 of 2022 (Indore);
Decided on 18.1.2024.
¼1½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 165¼6½ rFkk 165¼6&[k½ && ifjlhek && dysDVj dh vuqKk d¢ fcuk varj.k && vkosnu ij ;k Loçsj.kk ls] rhu o"kZ ds ijs 'kfä ç;qä ugÈ dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 7
¼2½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 50 rFkk 165¼6½ && Loçsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k dh 'kfä ç;qä djus dh ifjlhek && dysDVj dh vuqKk d¢ fcuk varj.k && ;g 'kfä tkudkjh fnukad ls 180 fnol d¢ Òhrj ç;qä dh tk ldrh gS && jktLo çkfèkdkfj;¨a ds vkns'kksa }kjk ihढ+h&nj&ihढ+h vusdkusd ukekarj.k fd, x, && ;g Lohdkj ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk fd ;g vkns'k tkudkjh esa ugÈ Fks && dysDVj us 180 fnol ds ijs ikfjr vkns'k esa ewy ÒwfeLokeh dk uke çR;kofrZr djus dk funs'k fd;k && dysDVj dk ,slk vkns'k vikLr fd;k x;kA 2010 jkfu 409 ¾ 2010 ¼3½ ts,yts 77 ¾ 2010 ¼4½ ,eih,yts 178 ¼mPp U;k-&iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 7
¼3½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 110] 50] 165¼6½ rFkk 165¼6&[k½ && Loçsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k dh 'kfä ç;qä djus dh ifjlhek && dysDVj dh vuqKk d¢ fcuk varj.k && jktLo çkfèkdkfj;¨a ds vkns'kksa }kjk ihढ+h&nj&ihढ+h vusdkusd ukekarj.k fd, x, && èkkjk 50 d¢ vèkhu Loçsj.kk ls 'kfä tkudkjh ds fnukad ls 180 fnol d¢ Òhrj ç;qä dh tk ldrh gS && èkkjk 165¼6&[k½ d¢ vèkhu vkosnu ij ;k Loçsj.kk ls] 'kfä rhu o"kZ d¢ Òhrj ç;qä dh tk ldrh gS && ;g vfÒopu Lohdkj ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk fd vkns'k tkudkjh esa ugÈ Fks && dysDVj us 180 fnol ds ijs rFkk 3 o"kZ ds ijs ikfjr vkns'k esa ewy ÒwfeLokeh dk uke çR;kofrZr djus dk funs'k fd;k] og Òh mld¢ fdlh vkosnu d¢ fcuk && dysDVj dk ,slk vkns'k vikLr fd;k x;k && ;kfpdk,¡ eatwjA
fo}ku dysDVj us vfÒfuèkkZfjr fd;k gS fd Hkwfe ij ;kphx.k ds ukekarj.k e-ç- Òw&jktLo lafgrk dh èkkjk 165 ¼6½ d¢ mYyaÄu esa fd, x, gSa] blfy, dysDVj us e- ç- Òw&jktLo lafgrk dh èkkjk 50 d¢ vèkhu 'kfä ç;qä djrs gq, vackjke dk uke jktLo vfÒys[k esa çR;kofrZr djus dk funs'k fn;k gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr% e-ç- Òw&jktLo lafgrk dh èkkjk 165 esa 3 o"kZ dh ifjlhek micaf/kr gSA e- ç- Òw&jktLo lafgrk dh èkkjk 165 dh mièkkjk ¼6½ ¼d½ ls ¼p½ d¢ micaèk] 1976 d¢ vfèkfu;e Øekad 61 }kjk e- ç- Òw&jktLo lafgrk dh èkkjk 165 dh mièkkjk ¼6½ d¢ i'pkr~ var%LFkkfir fd, x, FksA èkkjk ¼6&[k½ esa dysDVj }kjk viuh çsj.kk ls 'kfä ds ç;¨x dh ifjlhek micaf/kr gSA ftld¢ vuqlkj dysDVj fdlh Òh le; viuh çsj.kk ij ;k ,sls laO;ogkj d¢ rhu o"kZ d¢ Òhrj bl lacaèk esa ,sls ç:i esa fd, x, vkosnu ij tSlk fofgr fd;k tk,] varj.k d¨ ifj'kq) djus dk ;k varj.k d¨ ifj'kq) djus ls bUdkj djus dk vkns'k ikfjr dj ldrk gS] blfy,] Lohd`rr%] bl ekeys esa 'kfä dk ç;¨x rhu o"kZ dh dkykofèk ls ijs fd;k x;k gSA çR;FkÊx.k ;g vfÒokd~ ugÈ dj ldrs fd dysDVj d¨ tkudkjh ugÈ Fkh v©j ifjlhek tkudkjh fnukad ls vkjaÒ g¨xhA bl ekeys esa jktLo çkfèkdkfj;¨a d¢ vkns'k ls jktLo vfÒys[k esa ;kphx.k ds ukekarj.k fd, x, Fks] blfy, Loçsj.kk ls dk;Zokgh djus d¢ fy, ;g vfÒokd~ Lohdkj ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk fd vkns'k tkudkjh esa ugÈ FksA Lohd`rr%] u r¨ vackjke us] u mld¢ dqVqac d¢ fdlh lnL; ;k fofèkd çfrfufèk us gh jktLo vfÒys[k esa ;kphx.k ds ukekarj.k ij vk{ksi djus d¢ fy, d¨Ã vkosnu fd;kA ihढ+h&nj&ihढ+h vusdkusd ukekarj.kksa d¢ i'pkr~] Loçsj.kk ls dk;Zokgh djds ewy vkfnoklh ds uke dk çR;korZu] og Òh mld¢ fdlh vkosnu d¢ fcuk] mfpr ugÈ g¨xkA ¼iSjk 7 ,oa 9
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 165(6) and 165(6-b) -- limitation -- transfer without permission of Collector -- whether on application or suo motu, powers cannot be exercised beyond three years. [Para 7
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- Ss. 50 and 165(6) -- limitation for exercising suo motu powers -- transfer without permission of Collector -- such power can be exercised within 180 days from date of knowledge -- multiple mutations, generationto-generation, made by orders of revenue authorities -- it cannot be accepted that such orders were not in knowledge -- Collector directed restoration of name of original bhumiswami in order passed after 180 days -- such order of Collector set aside. 2010 RN 409 = 2010 (3) JLJ 77 = 2010 (4) MPLJ 178 (HC-FB) referred to. [Para 7
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- Ss. 110, 50, 165(6) and 165(6-b) -- limitation for exercising suo motu powers -- transfer without permission of Collector -- multiple mutations, generation-to-generation, made by orders of revenue authorities -- suo motu powers under section 50 can be exercised within 180 day from date of knowledge -- powers under section 165(6-b) on application or suo motu, can be exercised within three years -- plea that mutation orders were not in knowledge cannot be accepted -- Collector directed restoration of name of original bhumiswami in order passed beyond 180 days and beyond three years, that too without any application by him -- such order of Collector set aside -- petitions allowed.
The learned Collector held that the land was mutated in the name of the petitioners in violation of section 165(6) of MPLRC, therefore the Collector in exercise of power under section 50 of MPLRC has directed for restoring the name of Ambaram in the revenue record. [Para 2
Held : Section 165 of MPLRC provides limitation of 3 years. The provisions of subsection (6) (a) to (f) of section 165 of MPLRC were inserted after sub-section 6 of section 165 of MPLRC by way of Act No. 61 of 1976. Sub-section (6-b) provides the limitation for exercising the power by the Collector on his own motion. According to which the Collector may, on his motion at any time or on an application made in this behalf within three years of such transaction in such from as may be prescribed, pass an order rectifying the transfer or refusing to rectify the transfer, therefore, admittedly, in this case the power has been exercised beyond the period of three years. The respondents cannot take plea that the Collector had no knowledge and limitation will start from the date of knowledge. In the case, the name for petitioners were mutated in The revenue record by the orders passed by the revenue authority, thus the plea that orders were not in the knowledge cannot be accepted for taking suo motu action. Admittedly, neither Ambalal nor any family members or legal heirs filed any application for challenging the mutation of the name of the petitioner in revenue record. After multiple mutations, generation-to-generation, restoration of the name of original tribal, that too without any application by him, would not be proper by taking suo motu action [Paras 7 & 9
ORDER
1. These are connected Writ Petitions. The issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are similar, thus same are being decided by this common order. For the sake of the convenience the facts are being taken from the Writ Petition No.10567/2022.
The petitioner has filed the the present Writ Petition being aggrieved by the order dated 28.4.2022 passed by the Collector, Ratlam whereby direction has been issued to correct revenue record by mutating the name of Ambaram S/o Bhera Bhil for the land survey No.153 and 154.
2. According to the petitioners their ancestors were in peaceful possession of the land survey No.153 and 154 since 1964-65.Their names were recorded in the revenue records. After their death the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records and they are having possession till today. The Collector, Ratlam has issued show cause notice dated 26.10.2021 to the petitioner that in Misal Bandobast of 1957-58, the land survey No.123 was registered in the name of Ambaram and after settlement in the year 1996-97, the land was renumbered as 153 and 154 and mutated in the name Kareem Khan, Jareen Kha and at present in the name of Rajaram and Omprakash and Jareen Kha. The petitioner was called upon to explain on what basis this land was transferred in his name. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice and thereafter final order dated 28.04.2022 has been passed. The learned Collector held that the land was mutated in the name of the petitioners in violation of section 165(6) of M.P.L.R.C., therefore, the Collector in exercise of power under Section 50 of M.P.L.R.C. has directed for restoring the name of Ambaram in the revenue record. Hence, this Writ Petition before this Court.
3. Some of the petitioners approached before the Commissioner by way of Appeal but same was dismissed as not maintainable.
4. After notice, the respondents filed reply by submitting that Ambaram was aboriginal tribe and the land belonging to him was not liable to be transferred without permission of the Collector therefore by virtue section 165(6) of M.P.L.R.C, the said transfer is void. The similar issue has been decided by apex Court in case of Ranveer Singh v. State of M.P. reported in 2010(4) M.P.L.J. 178 in which it has been held that the limitation to exercise the power under section 50 of M.P.L.R.C is 180 days from the day when Tehsildar passed the order or from the date of knowledge, hence, no interference is called for, thus Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The brother of Ambaram i.e. Uderam has filed an application seeking intervention in the Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Collector on the ground that being brother of Ambaram his name is also liable to be mutated alongwith Ambaram as joint owner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
6. The respondents filed copy of letter dated 22.10.2021 (Annexure R/3) written by Office of Tehsildar, Jawra to Sub Divisional Officer, Jawra that in the year 1996-58 survey No.43 area 6 beegha, 12 beeswa was recorded in the name of Ambaram who was Bhil by caste, therefore, necessary action be taken in the matter. As per the reference/subject the aforesaid letter was written on oral order of the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jawra vide letter dated 22.10.2021 forwarded the aforesaid report to Collector, Ratlam, who in turn issued show casue notice dated 26.10.2021 to all the petitioners and after calling the reply, the impugned order dated 28.4.2022 has been passed, therefore, it is no a case where the Ambaram or any other claimant submitted any application for cancellation of the mutation in the name of these petitioners. It appears from the aforesaid letter, the Sub Divisional Officer by way of oral direction suo moto invited report from the Tehsildar and on the basis of said report, the Collector initiated the proceedings under section 165 (6) of M.P.L.R.C. As per revenue record, after resettle
The court affirmed that Bhumiswami rights cannot be transferred without proper permissions as mandated by the Land Revenue Code, and the petitioners failed to establish valid occupancy rights.
Land transfers by government lessees require prior approval from a Revenue Officer; transactions made without such consent are invalid.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
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
