Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
Narmada Prasad Sahu & Others v. State of M. P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 9642 of 2012 (Jabalpur): against the judgment dated 22.5.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Dindori, District Dindori in Appeals No. 33, 34, 35 and 36 (A-23/2010-11);
Decided on 13.3.2024
¼1½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 170&d && ykxw g¨uk && laO;ogkj lafgrk d¢ çkjaÒ g¨us rFkk 1976 d¢ la'k¨èku d¢ ço`Ùk g¨us ds fnukad d¢ e/; gqvk && èkkjk 170&d d¢ micaèk¨a d¢ vuqlkj ,slk laO;ogkj lR;kiu d¢ vè;èkhu gSA ¼iSjk 11
¼2½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 170&[k && fuoZpu && èkkjk 170&[k d¢ vèkhu 'kCn ^^dCtk^^ ç;qä] u fd ^^laO;ogkj dk fnukad^^ && fofèk dk fl)kar gS fd ifjÒk"kk [kaM esa ifjÒkf"kr ugha g¨us dh fLFkfr esa] dkuwu esa ç;qä 'kCn dks 'kkfCnd vFkZ fn;k tkuk pkfg, && 'kCn ^^dCtk^^ d¨ ^^laO;ogkj dk fnukad^^ iढ+k x;k rks lafgrk dh èkkjk 170&[k d¢ micaèk fujFkZd gks tk,¡xsA ¼iSjk 14
¼3½ fofèk dk fuoZpu && fl)kar && ifjÒk"kk [kaM esa ifjÒkf"kr ugha g¨us dh fLFkfr esa] dkuwu esa ç;qä 'kCn dks 'kkfCnd vFkZ fn;k tkuk pkfg, && vU;Fkk micaèk fujFkZd gks tk,xkA ¼iSjk 14
¼4½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e- ç-½ && èkkjk 170&[k && dh O;kfIr && èkkjk 170&[k d¢ vèkhu 'kCn ^^dCtk^^ ç;qä] u fd ^^laO;ogkj^^ && 2-10-1959 rFkk la'k¨èku vfèkfu;e] 1980 d¢ çkjaÒ g¨us dh rkjh[k d¢ e/; vkfne tutkfr dh Òwfe ij dCtk j[kus okys O;fä ls visf{kr gS fd og mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¨ vfèklwfpr djs fd ,slh Òwfe mld¢ dCts esa fdl çdkj vkà && laO;ogkj dk fnukad egRoghu gS && egRoiw.kZ igyw dCtk gSA ¼iSjk 11
¼5½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e- ç-½ && èkkjk 170&[k && ykxw g¨uk && vkfne tutkfr dh Òwfe && o"kZ 1931 esa vkfne tutkfr us Òw&jktLo@yxku dk lank; ugha dj ikus d¢ dkj.k Òwfe ekyxqtkj d¢ i{k esa lefiZr dj nh && ,slk lkfcr ugÈ && fcuk fdlh vkns'k d¢ ekyxqtkj d¢ okfjlksa dk jktLo vfÒys[k esa ukekarj.k && ekyxqtkj d¢ okfjl us pkj fÒUu&fÒUu foØ; foys[k¨a }kjk ;kphx.k d¢ i{k esa Òwfe foØ; dj nh && Øsrkv¨a dk ukekarj.k g¨ x;k rFkk mudk dCtk gS && vkfne tutkfr d¢ fofèkd okfjl çR;FkÊ Øekad 7 us mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¢ le{k èkkjk 170&[k d¢ vèkhu vkosnu fd;k && mi[kaM vfèkdkjh us çR;FkÊ Øekad 7 d¨ Òwfe çR;kofrZr djus d¢ funs'k d¢ lkFk mls eatwj fd;k && ,sls vkns'k d¢ fo#) vihy [kkfjt dh xà && çkfèkdkfj;¨a us d¨Ã Hkwy ugÈ dh && 2-10-1959 ,oa la'k¨èku vfèkfu;e] 1980 d¢ çkjaÒ g¨us ds fnukad d¢ e/; vkfne tutkfr dh Òwfe ij dCtk j[kus okyk O;fä && èkkjk 170&[k d¢ micaèk vkd`"V g¨axsA 1986 jkfu 106 ¼mPp U;k-&[kaM U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA 1985 jkfu 184 ¼mPp U;k-½ rFkk 1988 jkfu 169 ¼mPp U;k-½ çÒsfnrA 1981 jkfu 382 ¼mPp U;k-&[kaM U;k;ihB½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 15 ls 19] 34] 39 ,oa 41
¼6½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e- ç-½ && èkkjk 170&[k rFkk 257 ¼B&1½ && vfèkdkfjrk && vkfne tutkfr us gd dh Ĩ"k.kk d¢ fy, flfoy okn çLrqr fd;k && [kkfjt fd;k x;k && ekeyk èkkjk 170&[k d¢ vèkhu vkrk gS && flfoy U;k;ky; d¨ lafookn dk fofu'p;u djus dh vfèkdkfjrk ugÈ Fkh && ,sls lafookn dk fofu'p;u èkkjk 170&[k d¢ vèkhu mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¨ djuk g¨rk gS && flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh vfèkdkfjrkjfgr rFkk vÑrrkA ¼iSjk 31
¼7½ vfèkdkfjrk && vfèkdkfjrkjfgr vkns'k ;k fMØh && vkjaHk ls gh 'kwU; ,oa vÑrrk gS && mls fdlh Òh çØe ij] rFkk fu"iknu dh vkuq’kafxd dk;Zokgh esa Òh] vk{ksfir fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2004½ 8 ,llhlh 706 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 33
¼8½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku && vuq- 226 && flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 fu- 27 && rFkkdfFkr leiZ.ki= O;fäxr nLrkost && igyh ckj vfÒys[k ij çLrqr && vkns'k 41 fu;e 27 d¢ vèkhu vuqKk dh bZIlk ds fcuk] U;k;ky; mudk U;kf;d laKku ugÈ dj ldrkA ¼iSjk 38
¼9½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 fu- 27 && O;fäxr nLrkost && igyh ckj vfÒys[k ij çLrqr && vkns'k 41 fu;e 27 d¢ vèkhu vuqKk dh bZIlk ds fcuk] U;k;ky; mudk U;kf;d laKku ugÈ dj ldrkA ¼iSjk 38
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 170-A -- applicability -- transaction took place between commencement of Code and date on which amendment of 1976 came into force -- such transaction is subject to verification as per provisions of section 170-A. [Para 11
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 170-B -- interpretation -- word ''possession'' used under section 170-B, not ''date of transaction'' -- principle of law is that word used in statute must be given literal meaning in case it is not defined in definition clause -- if word ''possession'' is read as ''date of transaction'', it would make provisions of section 170-B redundant. [Para 14
(3) Interpretation of Statute -- principle -- word used in statute must be given literal meaning in case it is not defined in definition clause -- otherwise it would make provision redundant. [Para 14
(4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 170-B -- scope -- word ''possession'' used under section 170-B, not ''transaction'' -- person in possession of land belonging to aboriginal tribe between 2.10.1959 and date of commencement of Amendment Act of 1980, is required to notify to SDO as to how he has come in possession of such land -- date of transaction is immaterial -- material aspect is possession. [Para 11
(5) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S. 170-B -- applicability -- land belonging to aboriginal tribal -- in year 1931, aboriginal tribal surrendered land in favour of Malgujar due to non-payment of land revenue -- same not proved -- heirs of Malgujar mutated in revenue record without any order -- heir of Malgujar sold land by four different sale deeds in favour of petitioners -- names of purchasers mutated and they are in possession -- respondent No. 7, legal heir of aboriginal tribal, made application before SDO under section 170-B -- same allowed directing reversion of land to respondent No.7 -- appeal against such order dismissed -- authorities did not commit any mistake -- person in possession of land belonging to aboriginal tribe between 2.10.1959 and date of commencement of Amendment Act, 1980 -- provisions of section 170-B would be attracted. 1986 RN 106 (HC-DB) relied on. 1985 RN 184 (HC) and 1988 RN 169 (HC) distinguished. 1981 RN 382 (HC-DB) referred to. [Paras 15 to 19, 34, 39 & 41
(6) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- Ss. 170-B and 257 (l-1) -- jurisdiction -- civil suit for declaration of title filed by aboriginal tribal -- dismissed -- matter falls under section 170-B -- civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide controversy -- such controversy to be decided by SDO under section 170-B -- judgment and decree passed by civil Court without jurisdiction and nullity. [Para 31
(7) Jurisdiction -- without jurisdiction order or decree -- is void ab initio and nullity -- same can be challenged at any stage and even in execution of collateral proceedings. (2004) 8 SCC 706 followed. [Para 33
(8) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 27 -- so-called surrender letters private documents -- placed on record for first time -- without permission being sought under order 41 rule 27, Court cannot take judicial notice of same. [Para 38
(9) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 27 -- private documents -- placed on record for first time -- without permission being sought under order 41 rule 27, Court cannot take judicial notice of same. [Para 38
ORDER
1. This Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 1.12.2010 passed by SDO (Revenue), District Dindori in Revenue Case No.01(A-23) 2010-11 and order dated 22.5.2012 passed by Additional Collector, Dindori, District Dindori in Appeal No.33, 34, 35, 36 (A-23) 2010-11 by which land of petitioners has been directed to be reverted back to respondent No.7 under the provisions of section 170B of MPLR Code.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that earlier Chhutiya Kol was in possession of property in dispute in the year 1929-30. Thereafter, he surrendered his land in favour of the then Malgujar, namely; Bodhiram Teli on account of non-payment of land revenue. According to petitioners, family tree of Bodhiram Teli is as under:
|
| Bodhiram Teli |
|
| Kathorelal |
| Ramratan |
| Narmada Prasad | Sharda | Parasram |
3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that Bodhiram Teli partitioned the property during his lifetime between his sons Kathorelal and Ramratan and disputed property went to the share of Ramratan. Ramratan during his lifetime carried out family settlement and disputed property went to the share of Nanhi Bai W/o Ramratan. Nanhi Bai executed a will in favour of Ramratan. In his turn Ramratan executed a Will in favour of Parasram and Parasram in his turn alienated the property by four different sale deeds in favour of petitioners. It is submitted that thereafter, Ajuram Kol filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession of Khasra No.669 area 3.66 and Araji No.668 area 1.40 hectare against Parasram. The said civil suit was instituted in the year 2003, which was registered as Civil Suit No.71A/2003. The said civil suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 16.4.2005 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, District Dindori with a clear finding that Chhutiya Kol had surrendered the land in favour of the then Malgujar on 30.6.1991 and since then name of the then Malgujar, namely Bodhiram Teli was recorded in the revenue record. It was further held that since Chhutiya Kol had surrendered his land in the year 1931 in favour of the then Malgujar, therefore, right of Chhutiya Kol over the land in dispute came to an end. It was further held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time. It is submitted that after having lost the civil suit, Ajuram filed an application under Section 170-B of MPLR Code. Although names of petitioners were recorded in the revenue records, in spite of that only Parasram was impleaded as sole respondent and petitioners were not impleaded. Parasram was proceeded ex parte and accordingly, SDO (Revenue), District Dindori by order dated 1.12.2010 passed in Revenue Case No.1(A-23) 2010-11 held that the land in dispute is the ancestral land of Ajuram and Parasram, who is the non aboriginal tribe has forcibly taken possession of the same, which is not in accordance with law and accordingly, it was directed that Parasram should revert back the possession of land in dispute to Ajuram. Since Parasram had executed four different sale deeds, accordingly, Smt. Shyama Bai preferred appeal No.34(A-23) 2010/2011, Durgesh Kumar preferred appeal No.36(A-23) 2010/2011, Hiralal preferred appeal No.33(A-23) 2010/2011 and Narmada Prasad preferred appeal No.35(A-23) 2010/2011. By order dated 22.5.2012 passed separately in all four different appeals, it was held that Civil Court had held that initially name of Chhutiya Kol, who is the grandfather of Ajuram was recorded in the revenue record and therefore surrender of the land in favour of the then Malgujar cannot be said to be a valid transfer and thus it was held that the SDO did not commit any mistake by directing the reversion of land back to respondent No.7 Ajuram.
4. Challenging the orders passed by Additional Collector, Dindori, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that the Civil Court has given a specific finding that Chhutiya Kol had surrendered his land in favour of Bodhiram Teli a
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters under Section 170B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, particularly regarding benami transactions involving members of aboriginal tribes.
The court affirmed that transactions predating the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code are not subject to its provisions, and the power of review cannot be exercised beyond the limitation period.
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.
The civil court has jurisdiction to hear a suit for cancellation of a sale deed relating to converted land, even if the sale deed was executed before the conversion.
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
