(Passed on this 05^th Day of October, 2021)

Instant petition is preferred by the petitioners under Article

226 of the Constitution of India (mainly under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India) being crestfallen by order dated 12/5/2021

(Annexure P/4) passed by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Revenue

(hereinafter shall be referred to as “Board”); whereby, appeal

preferred by the petitioners under Section 44(2) of M.P. Land

Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter shall be referred to as “Code”)

got dismissed and order dated 5/8/2010 (Annexure P/2) passed by

the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena has been

affirmed and order dated 15/10/2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the

Collector,Sheopur has been set aside.

2.

Precisely stated facts of the case are that at village

Ichchhapura, District Sheopur, late Motilal Mali S/o Siriya Mali

(father of respondent No. 1) was granted a Patta by Bhoodan Board

[Constituted as per the M.P. Bhoodan Yagna Adhiniyam, 1968

(hereinafter shall be referred to as “Adhiniyam, 1968”]. It appears

that land was given on Patta purportedly around or after year

1968. In year 1977, petitioners purchased the land through

registered sale deed from late Motilal and that is the point of

dispute existing between the parties since then.

4 W.P.No. 12300/2021

3.

According to respondent No. 1, his father Motilal Mali

passed away in year 1974 itself whereas sale deed executed in

1977, therefore, sale deed executed by him allegedly in year 1977

is a forged one. In year 1977, respondent No. 1 was minor and

after attaining majority, he filed an application before the

Collector, District Sheopur narrating the fact of alleged execution

of sale deed by his father (after his death) and according to him

same was a fraud committed by the petitioners.

4.

It is further submitted that disputed land was given by the

Bhoodan Board on lease and therefore, same could not have been

sold without the permission of Bhoodan Board / Collector but

petitioners by filing false case number (Missal number), caused

mutation of land record in their names and forcibly took the

possession of land.

5.

Collector issued notice to the petitioners over the said

application and vide order dated 15/10/2007 (Annexure P/1) held

that permission to sell the land has been given by the Collector on

application of petitioners vide order dated 5/1/2004 and therefore,

on this ground rejected the application.

6.

Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 1

preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal

Division, Morena who in turn, vide order dated 5/8/2010

(Annexure P/2) set aside the order passed by the Collector and

remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar, Sheopur with the

direction that in case any application is preferred by respondent

No. 1 for mutation then proceedings of mutation be ensured.

5 W.P.No. 12300/2021

7.

Now it was the turn of the petitioners to agitate the said

order before the Revenue Board. Vide order dated 3/2/2016

(Annexure P/3) appeal preferred by petitioners was dismissed by

the Revenue Board, but on filing a review application by

petitioners, vide order dated 16/11/2016 review was allowed and

original appeal restored to its original numbers. Thereafter, vide

order dated 12/5/2021 (Annexure P/4), learned Administrative

Member of Revenue Board passed a detail order and dismissed the

appeal preferred by petitioners under Section 44 (2) of Code.

8.

It is the submissions of learned senior counsel for the

petitioners that authorities below committed an error in passing the

orders Annexures P/2 to P/4 while examining the validity of sale

deed dated 6/1/1977 on the basis of Section 158(3) and 165(7-b) of

the Code which were not existing on the date of sale deed i.e.

6/1/1977. Provisions as contained in Section 158(3) of Code came

into existence in year 1980 and that of Section