Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 425

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Badshah Barela (Deleted) Through LRs & Another
v. State of M.P. & Other
Writ Petition No. 5788 of 2017 (Gwalior): against the order dated 9.11.2016 passed by the President, Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior in Revision Case No. 808-2/2017;
Decided on 5.8.2021

Advocates:
N.K. Gupta with S.D.S. Bhadoriya for petitioners; Deepak Khot, Government Advocate for respondent/State

Headnote:
¼1½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 51 rFkk 165 ¼7&[k½ & iqufoZy¨du & D;k iqufoZy¨du ds iwoZ ;kph Øekad 2 d¨ lwpuk nh tkuk pkfg, & vkns’k fnukad 18-7-1960 }kjk Òwfe dk iV~Vk çnku fd;k x;k & dysDVj dh vuqKk d¢ fcuk dqN Òwfe ;kph Øekad 2 d¢ i{k esa varfjr dh xÃ & ;kph Øekad 2 ds i{k esa ukekarj.k g¨ x;k & vkns’k fnukad 22-2-2007 }kjk og vikLr dj fn;k x;k & ;kph Øekad 2 us bl vkns’k ij vk{ksi ugha fd;k & og vafre g¨ x;k & vkns’k fnukad 18-7-1960 d¢ iqufoZy¨du d¢ fy, lafLFkr dk;Zokgh esa ;kph Øekad 2 d¨ lquokÃ dk volj fn;k tkuk vko’;d ugha FkkA ¼iSjk 12½
¼2½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 158¼3½ rFkk 165 ¼7&[k½ & Òwfe iV~Vs ij nh xÃ & iV~Vsnkj d¨ ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj çnRr & iV~Vk fn, tkus d¢ fnukad ls 10 o"kZ d¢ Òhrj Òwfe varfjr ugha dh tk ldrh & rRi’pkr~ dysDVj ls lE;d~ vuqKk çkIr djus d¢ i’pkr~ gh Òwfe vU; laØfer dh tk ldrh gSA 2002 jk fu 250 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½] 2012 jk fu 346 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½] 1996 jk fu 175 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½] 2007 jk fu 218 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½ rFkk çdh.kZ ;kfpdk Øekad 3452 lu~ 2019 fu.kÊr fnukad 4-9-2019 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 13 ls 15½
¼3½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ & Òwfeghu O;fDr d¨ iV~Vs ij Òwfe nh xÃ & mn~ns’; & Ñf"k fØ;kdyki ls vkthfodk dk ewy lkèku çnku djuk & mldk mi;¨x vU; laØfer dj ykÒ dekus d¢ fy, ugha fd;k tk ldrk & èkkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ d¢ vèkhu ;qfDr&;qDr çfrcaèk yxk;k x;k gS fd dysDVj dh vuqKk ds fcuk dksbZ Òwfe vU; laØfer ugha dh tk,xhA ¼iSjk 17½
¼4½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 300d & eŒçŒ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 & èkkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ & laifRr dk lkafoèkkfud vfèkdkj & èkkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ Òwfe dk miÒ¨x djus dk ÒwfeLokeh dk lkjoku~ vfèkdkj ugha Nhurh & ijarq ;g] dysDVj dh vuqKk d¢ flok;] foØ; ij j¨d vfèkj¨fir djrh gSA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17½
¼5½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ & ykxw g¨uk & Òwry{kh;k ugha & èkkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ mu leLr laO;ogkj¨a dks ykxw gksrh gS t¨ bld¢ var%LFkkiu d¢ i’pkr~ g¨a & pkgs bld¢ iwoZ ljdkjh iV~Vk çnku fd;k x;k g¨ ;k ljdkjh iV~Vsnkj d¨ ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj çnRr fd, x, g¨A ¼iSjk 17½
¼6½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 50] 51 rFkk 165 ¼7&[k½ & Loçsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k & ifjlhek dk vkjaÒ & fcUnq & Loçsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k dh 'kfDr ds ç;¨x ds fy, ;qfDr&;qDr le; voSèkrk ;k vu©fpR; ;k vfu;ferrk dh tkudkjh d¢ fnukad ls 180 fnol gS & èkkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ d¢ mYyaÄu esa Òwfe ds varj.k dk rF; çR;FkÊx.k dh tkudkjh esa vk;k & ukekarj.k vkns’k d¢ iqufoZy¨du d¢ fy, dk;Zokgh rqjUr çkjaÒ dh xÃ & rRi’pkr~ iV~Vk çnku djus ds vkns’k d¢ fo#) Loçsj.kk ls iqujh{k.k dk;Zokgh çkjaÒ dh xÃ & ifjlhek vofèk vkns’k fnukad ls vkjaÒ ugha g¨xh & ;kph d¢ voSèk dk;Z dh tkudkjh d¢ fnukad ls vkjaÒ g¨xh & ;kph ;g LFkkfir djus esa vlQy jgk fd 'kfDr dk ç;¨x ;qfDr&;qDr le; d¢ Òhrj ugha fd;k x;kA 2010 jk fu 409 % 2010 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 77 ¼mPp U;k;ky; iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 18 ls 21½
¼7½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 165 ¼7&[k½ & dysDVj dh vuqKk d¢ fcuk ;kph Øekad 1 us ;kph Øekad 2 d¢ i{k esa dqN Òwfe varfjr dh & Òou ;k ikdZ ds fuekZ.k d¢ vkèkkj ij ;kph Øekad 2 d¢ i{k esa d¨Ã lkjoku~ vfèkdkj l`ftr gqvk ;k ugha & ;kph Øekad 2 d¢ i{k esa ikfjr ukekarj.k vkns’k vikLr fd;k x;k & og vkns’k vk{ksfir ugha fd;k x;k & vafre g¨ x;k & ;g tkuus ds ckotwn fd vc mldk uke jktLo vfÒys[k esa ugha gS] mlus Òwfe ij fodkl fd;k & ;g mlus vius tksf[ke ij fd;k & og Lo;a d¢ n¨"k dk Qk;nk ugha mBk ldrkA ¼iSjk 22½
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 51 and 165 (7-B) -- review -- whether notice to petitioner No. 2 should be given prior to review -- lease of land granted by order dated 18.7.1960 -- some land transferred to petitioner No. 2 without permission of Collector -- mutation took place in favour of petitioner No. 2 -- same set aside by order dated 22.2.2007 -- this order not challenged by petitioner No. 2 -- attained finality -- it was not necessary to give opportunity of hearing to petitioner No. 2 in proceedings initiated for review of order dated 18.7.1960. [Para 12]
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 158 (3) and 165 (7-B) -- land granted on lease -- Bhumiswami rights conferred to lessee -- land cannot be transferred within 10 years of grant of lease -- thereafter, land can be alienated only after obtaining due permission from Collector.2002 RN 250 (HC), 2012 RN 346 (HC), 1996 RN 175 (SC), 2007 RN 218 (HC) and M.P. No. 3452 of 2019 decided on 4.9.2019 relied on. [Paras 13 to 15]
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 165 (7-B) -- land granted to landless person on lease -- object -- to provide source of livelihood by carrying on agricultural activities -- same cannot be used for earning profit by alienating -- reasonable restriction has been put under section 165 (7-B) that no land would be alienated without permission of Collector. [Para 17]
(4) Constitution of India-- Art. 300A -- M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S. 165 (7-B) -- Constitutional right to property -- section 165 (7-B) does not take away substantial rights of Bhumiswami to enjoy land -- but it imposes restriction on sale of such land except with permission of Collector. [Paras 16 & 17]
(5) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 165 (7-B) -- applicability -- retrospective or not -- section 165 (7-B) is applicable to all transactions which take place after its insertion -- whether Government lease was granted or Bhumiswami rights were conferred on Government lessee prior to it. [Para 17]
(6) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 50, 51 and 165 (7-B) -- suo motu revision -- starting point of limitation -- reasonable time for exercise of power of suo motu revision is 180 days from date of knowledge of illegality or impropriety or irregularity -- fact of transfer of land in violation of section 165 (7-B) came to knowledge of respondents -- proceedings initiated immediately for review of mutation order -- thereafter suo motu revision proceedings initiated against order granting lease -- period of limitation would not start from date of order -- would start from date of knowledge of illegal act of petitioner -- petitioner failed to established that power was not exercised within reasonable time. 2010 RN 409 : 2010 (3) JLJ 77 (HC-FB) relied on. [Paras 18 to 21]
(7) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 165 (7-B) -- without permission of Collector, some land transferred by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2 -- whether any substantive right has been created in favour of petitioner No. 2 on account of construction of building or park -- mutation order passed in favour of petitioner No. 2 was set aside -- that order not challenged -- became final -- despite knowing that his name is not in revenue record any more, he developed land -- it was done at his own risk -- he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. [Para 22]

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Point 1 (!) - Point 2 (!) - Point 3 (!) - Point 4 (!) - Point 5 (!) - Point 6 (!) - Point 7 (!) - Point 8 (!) - Point 9 (!) - Point 10 (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“(a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 9.11.2016 passed by the President, Madhya Pradesh Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revision Case No.808-2/2007.

(b) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 30.4.2007 passed by the Learned Collector, Guna in Case No.5/Suo-motto Revision/2006-07 and order dated 22.2.2007 passed by Nayab Tahsildar, Circle Umari, Pargana Guna in Case No.197-B/121/2006-07.

(c) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the direction to the respondent No.4 to record the name of the petitioners in the revenue records previously.”

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 was owner and in possession of land bearing Khasra No.9/26 area ad measuring 4.045 hectares and his name was also recorded in the revenue record as Bhumiswami as well as holder of possession. It is further submitted that the land bearing survey No.9/26, 11/8 and 12/11 total ad-measuring 20 Beegha was given on Patta by Naib Tahdildar District Guna by order dated 18.7.1960. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 is the owner and in possession of survey No.9/26 and, accordingly, he applied for grant of certified copies of revenue records from the year 1960 but the certified copies of Khasra Panchshala from 1974-75 were provided.

3. The petitioner No.1 by a registered gift deed, gifted 1.045 hectares from Khasra No.9/26 to the petitioner No.2. On the basis of said gift deed, the mutation order was passed in favour of petitioner No.2 and, accordingly, the revenue records were amended. Similarly, the petitioner No.1 also sold an area ad-measuring 1.009 hectares from Khasra No.9/26 by a registered sale deed dated 20.8.2004 to the petitioner No.2 and on the basis of the said registered sale deed, Gram Sabha Nainpura passed resolution No.5 on 7.10.2004 in favour of petitioner No.2 and the name of petitioner No.2 as mutated in the revenue records.

4. After the mutation, the petitioner No.2 filed an application for Batankan and by order dated 10.1.2005 Batankan was also done and a separate Khasra and Khatauni was prepared in the name of petitioner No.2. It is submitted that on the basis of one baseless complaint, respondent No.2 issued a direction to the respondent No.4 for enquiry and the respondent No.4 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, registered Case No.197/B-121/2006-07 and directed the Halka Patwari for his report and documents. The Halka Patwari submitted his report that the land bearing Khasras No. 9/2/3, 9/3, 9/4/2, 9/26/1, 11/8, 12/11 total area ad-measuring 10.486 hectares is at present recorded in the name of farmer Badshah whereas survey Nos.9, 11 and 12 are registered as Government land in Misil Bandobast of the year 1956-57 and the said lands were received by Badshah on lease. The petitioner No.1/Badshah has gifted 1.045 hectares out of survey No.9/26 by a registered gift deed dated 13.2.2002 and the name of the petitioner No.2 has been mutated in the revenue record and similarly by registered sale deed dated 20.8.2004, 1.009 hectares forming part of survey No.9/26 has been sold to petitioner No.2 and the name of petitioner No.2 has also been mutated in the revenue record. On the basis of the report, the respondent No.3 SDO came to a conclusion that the said land was transferred without the permission of the Collector and, accordingly, granted permission to review the mutation order passed in favour of petitioner No.2 and a further direction was given that the respondent No.4 should enter in column No.12 of Khasra Panchshala that “the said land are granted by Government on lease and the sale is prohibited.”

5. It is submitted that after receiving the review permission, respondent No.4 did not give any proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and a