ORDER

1. The present writ appeal under Section 2 (i) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 02.11.2012 passed in W.P. No.8414/2011, whereby while allowing the writ petition the order passed by the Collector dated 11.11.2011 in suo-moto revision in case no.97/10-11 was quashed.

2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is assailed raising a question as to under which provision of law, the lease holders who were granted the lease in 1972 had obtained the absolute transferable rights to transfer the lease land free from embargo of permission from Collector and further whether they had such rights in 1976 or 1978, when they were granted the Bhumiswami rights.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/State, Shri Ankur Modi, learned AAG had vehemently submitted that as per the provisions of Section 158 (3) of MPLRC the cut of date for conferred of Bhumiswami rights in respect of land under lease by its deaming provision is suggested and finally indicative of the Bhumiswami rights effected from 28.10.1992 in respect of the land being held under lease prior to 28.10.1992 and as per Section 158 (3), the lease holder of pre-amendment period i.e. prior to 28.10.1992, when the amendment Act of 1992 came into force by which Section 158 (3) of the MPLRC had been amended, for the first time conferred Bhumiswami status in statutory manner in respect of the lease land from 28.10.1992 which implies and pre-supposes that prior to 28.10.1992, the lease holders were merely lessees and remained as such.

4. It was further submitted that the fact of status of lease holders of pre-amendment period retaining their status as lessee up to 28.10.1992 and, therefrom, the conferral Bhumiswami right is strengthened from the statement of object of Amendment Act, 1992 which makes the intention of the legislature clear as to when the Bhumiswami rights would be conferred on the old lease.

5. Learned AAG referred to the object behind the amendment act which reads as under: Statements of Objects and Reasons given in Section 159 of MPLRC, 1959 list of persons included under the term Bhumiswami has been given, but such list does not cover the names of the persons who have been allotted land by the State Government. Consequently such persons are always deemed to be lessee. In order to remove the discrepancy it was proposed to grant Bhumiswami rights to such persons who have been allotted land by the State Government, Collector or the Allotment Officer subject to condition that such person would not be entitled to transfer such lands within a period of ten years from the date of lease or allotment”.

6. It was further submitted that from the aforesaid statements of objects it could be inferred that legislature has always treated the old lease-holders to be lessees and to be outside the purview of term Bhumiswami, thus, it is apparent from the statement of object that legislature had never thought of the old leases to have been inflected with the status of Bhumiswami in statutory manner with transferable rights and it was for the first time that Section 158 (3) of MPLRC by the Amendment Act of 1992 had included the old lessees in the list of Bhumiswami under Section 158 (3) of the Act and hence by such inclusion the status of Bhumiswami with transferable right for the first time was conferred upon the lease-holders, but that too was subjected to complete ban on right of transfer within 10 years and, thereafter, it was made subject to permission of Collector.

7. It was further submitted that on the question of conferment of Bhumiswami rights the writ court held in para no.20, 21 and 22 by referring the case of AIR 1976 MP 160 that Bhumiswami had right to transfer the land, but the said judgment did not touch the merits of the dispute herein as it did not pertain to conferral of Bhumiswami rights upon the lease-holders nor had dealt with and decided as to how and when the lease-holder a