IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Milind Ramesh Phadke, J.
Janki Bai & Others v. State of M.P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 29663 of 2023 (Gwalior); Decided on 12.6.2025.
¼1½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 162¼2½ & uk;c rglhynkj }kjk 6-2-1961 dks ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a esa iV~Vk çnku fd;k x;k & iV~Vsnkj dh gSfl;r ÒwfeLokeh dh gS] ljdkj d¢ iV~Vsnkj dh ughaA ¼iSjk 18½
¼2½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 165¼7&[k½ & varj.k dh vuqKk dc visf{kr ugÈ & ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a esa iV~Vk 6-2-1961 d¨ çnku fd;k x;k & èkkjk 165¼7&[k½ 24-10-1980 d¨ var%LFkkfir & èkkjk 165¼7&[k½ d¢ var%LFkkiu d¢ iwoZ vuqKk ysus dh ,slh d¨Ã vM+pu ;k mifjdk ugÈ Fkh & var%LFkkiu d¢ i'pkr~ Hkh] mifjdk d¢oy ,sls O;fä ds laca/k esa gS tks ljdkj ds iV~Vk/kkjh dh gSfl;r esa Hkwfe /kkj.k djrk Fkk vkSj ckn esa ml Hkwfe dk ÒwfeLokeh g¨ x;k & mlds }kjk gh vuqKk çkIr dh tkuk visf{kr gSA 2013 jkfu 8 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½ rFkk 2024 ¼1½ jkfu 363 ¼mPp U;k;ky;&[kaM U;k;ihB½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 21 ,oa 22½
¼3½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 117 rFkk 165¼7&[k½ & [kljs d¢ LraÒ 12 esa çfof"V & èkkjk 165¼7&[k½ d¢ var%LFkkiu d¢ iwoZ ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a esa iV~Vk çnku fd;k x;k & [kljs d¢ LraÒ 12 esa 'kCn ^^vgLrkarj.kh;^^ dh çfof"V & tc èkkjk 165¼7&[k½ d¢ var%LFkkiu d¢ iwoZ ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a esa iV~Vk çnku fd;k x;k Fkk rc varj.k dh vuqKk ysuk visf{kr ugÈ Fkk & 'kCn ^^vgLrkarj.kh;^^ dh çfof"V mfpr ugÈ & jktLo vfèkdkjhx.k dks mls foy¨fir djus dk funs'kA ¼iSjk 21 ls 23½
(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 162(2) -- patta granted in Bhumiswami rights by Naib Tahsildar on 6.2.1961 -- capacity of lessee is as Bhumiswami, not as lessee of Government. [Para 18]
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S. 165(7-B) -- permission of transfer when not required -- patta granted on 6.2.1961 in Bhumiswami rights -- section 165(7-B) inserted on 24.10.1980 -- prior to insertion of section 165(7-B), there was no such impediment or rider of seeking permission -- even after insertion, rider was only with regard to person who held land as Government lessee and subsequently became bhumiswami of such land -- only he is required to seek permission. 2013 RN 8 (HC) and 2024 (1) RN 363 (HC-DB) referred to. [Paras 21 & 22]
(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- Ss. 117 and 165(7-B) -- entry in column 12 of khasra -- patta granted in Bhumiswami rights prior to insertion of section 165(7-B) -- entry of word ''non-transferable'' in column 12 of khasra -- seeking permission of transfer was not required when patta was granted in Bhumiswami rights prior to insertion of section 165(7-B) -- entry of word ''non-transferable'' not proper -- revenue authorities directed to delete it. [Paras 21 to 23]
ORDER
1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is preferred being aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authorities in recording the land bearing Survey No.1/19 Min 1 Rakba 0.585 hectares situated at Village Ari Tehsil and District Guna in Column No.12 as 'non-transferable' though the said land is of the ownership of the petitioners.
2. The aforesaid action has been assailed on the ground that the said entry was made in the revenue records without there being any specific order and even though it didn't belonged to any of the categories of non- transferable lands.
3. Short facts of the case are that in the year 1961, a lease was granted to one Gopi Lal S/o Chhutti Lal Lodha vide order dated 6.2.1961 in Case No.188/161-162, admeasuring 10 Bighas from Aaraji No.1 situated at Village Ari Tehsil and District Guna. In the Khasra Panchshala of the Samvat 2034-2038, the entry with regard to Survey No.1/19 was made against the name of Gopi Lal and later the name of Gangaram/predecessor of present petitioners was mutated by mutation No.19 dated 25.9.1980 for the land bearing survey No.1/19 Min 1 Rakba 0.585 hectare in Column No.12. Since thereafter the land remained in the name of Gangaram s/o Behro Singh in Khasra Panchshala of Samvat 2039-2043 and other respective khasras. Since the year 1964 and thereafter, the land bearing survey No.1/19 situated at village Ari Tehsil and District Guna has been continued in revenue records i.e. khasras of ownership of petitioner and as of now also in the new khasras and the revenue entries, the land is registered under the ownership of petitioners. The petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the action of respondents authorities in mentioning the said land, which is of the ownership of petitioners as 'non-transferable' without there being any order in that regard. Alleging the aforesaid entry to be de-hors the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and is not legally sustainable, prayer is made to delete such entry from the Khasra relating to Aaraji No.1 by filing the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the entry 'non-transferable' in Column No.12 with regard to Survey No.1/19 situated at Village Ari, Tehsil and District Guna has been made without there being any order and without following any procedure of law, therefore, the said entry being completely arbitrary is liable to be deleted.
5. It was further submitted that the land bearing Survey No.1/19 was given on Patta to one Gopi lal by order dated 6.2.1961 and in the Khatoni of the year 1964, in respect of Survey No.1/19 specific entry was made that the Bhumiswami rights have been accrued to Gopilal and even in the Khasra of the samvat 2034-2028, the entry has been made in the area of survey No.1/19 against the name of Gopilal.
6. It was further submitted that in the year 1980, the land bearing Survey No.1/19 was mutated in the name of Granga Ram (predecessor of the petitioners), which was transferred to him by Gopilal in his capacity as Bhumiswami of the said survey number.
7. It was also submitted that the provisions of 'nontransferable' land is made for the categories of the lands which are affected by the provisions under section 158(3), section 165(7-A) and (7-B) of the Code i.e. the lands, which are allotted under the lease hold rights or later, there is accrual of Bhumiswami Rights and cannot be transferred after the allotment till 10 years and after 10 years, the land can be transferred only with the permission of the Competent Authority whereas in the present case, the land bearing Survey No.1/19 was allotted and in the year 1961, itself, the Bhumiswami rights have accrued in favour of Gopilal, therefore, the amended provisions of section 158(3) and section 165(7-A) & (7-B) of the MPLRC will not be applicable, which were incorporated later on and cannot be said to have any retrospective effect, therefore, the entry 'non-transfera
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.