ORDER

By this Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 19/11/2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.477/Appeal/2019-20 (Rajdhar Singh Yadav and others Vs. Collector, District Guna and another) and order dated 15/10/2019 passed by Collector, District Guna in case No.20/Suo Motu Revision/2012-13 (State of M.P. Vs. Rajdhar Singh).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Survey No.236/1 area 2.000 hectares situated at village Aamkheda Sukha, Tehsil Aron, District Guna was the Government property and respondent no.3-Mishrilal Yadav was granted patta of aforesaid land vide order dated 25/9/1984 passed in Case No.115A/19/82-83. After about 10 years of his continuous possession, he executed two sale-deeds dated 10/2/1994 and 30/5/1994 of the said land in favour of the petitioners, after taking due consideration. Without previous permission of the concerned Collector, these sale-deeds were made in contravention of Provision of Section 165(7-b) of MPLRC.

Collector took suo-moto cognizance in the matter on the report submitted by SDO and sale-deeds being in contravention of Provision of MPLRC, ignoring the registered sale-deeds in favour of the petitioners, recorded the property in favour of the State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that land in question was recorded in the name of respondent no.3-Mishrilal Yadav, there was nothing on record that land was given to him on lease and there was no prohibition on sale mentioned in revenue record. Mishrilal, after taking due consideration, executed aforesaid sale-deeds in favour of the petitioners and petitioners from the date of execution of the sale- deeds were in cultivating possession of the land. On the basis of registered sale-deeds in favour of the petitioners, names of the petitioners were also mutated in the Revenue Record. After about 19 years, respondent no.3 took an objection, however, the matter was compromised for an amount of Rs.7,000/- vide order dated 11/6/2001 passed by the concerned SDO in appeal. After passing of long time, Collector took cognizance suo-moto and ignoring the sale-deeds in favour of the petitioners, recorded the land in favour of the State. Order of Collector is wholly erroneous and without jurisdiction. The appeal filed there-against by the petitioners, has been dismissed without any ground by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior ignoring the fact that the Collector took cognizance after a long period, while Collector may take suo-moto cognizance within 180 days.

Petitioners relied upon the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Ranveer Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2010 (III) MPJR (FB) 347 and submitted that sale came to notice of Revenue Officials in the year 2001 when Tehsildar rejected the mutation order.

5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that admittedly the land was of State and respondent no.3-Mishrilal Yadav was granted lease for cultivation, but he sold the property without previous permission of Collector concerned, which was in complete violation of Provisions of MPLRC. Government Advocate further submits that on the recommendation dated 3/4/2013 by SDO, Collector took suo motu cognizance on 1/5/2013, i.e. within one month. Thus, Full Bench judgment would not come to help of petitioners.

6. It appears that on the complaint made by respondent no.3- Mishrilal Yadav, report was called from SDO concerned and on the basis of report dated 3/4/2013, matter was registered and show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners. Collector found that land was a State property and respondent no.3-Mishrilal Yadav was granted lease by Tehsildar. Ownership right was granted to him, but he had to sell