Back
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
Narmada Prasad Sahu S/O Late Ramratan Sahu (Died) Deleted – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
This Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 01.12.2010 passed by SDO (Revenue), District Dindori in Revenue Case No.01(A-23) 2010-11 and order dated 22.05.2012 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:
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 Wil
The court affirmed that the provisions of Section 170-B of the MPLR Code protect the land rights of aboriginal tribes, and Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over matters exclusively under the MPLR Code.
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 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 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 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.
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.
Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to adjudicate the correctness and genuineness of a 'Will' for mutation of name.
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
