ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revision No.150-Two/2009 by which the orders passed by the Collector, as well as Commissioner have been set aside.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application under section 165(7-b) of the M.P.L.R.Code for declaring the sale-deed executed by his father on 26.7.1988 as null and void as the same was executed without obtaining due permission from the Collector. The Collector by the impugned order dated 19.10.2006 passed in Case No.11/B-121/06-07 set aside the said sale-deed on the ground of violation of provisions of section 165(7-b) of the Code.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division Jabalpur which was registered as Case No.233/B-121/07-08 which was also dismissed by order dated 16.1.2009.

4. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Collector as well as Commissioner, the respondent preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Revision No.150-2/2009 and by impugned order dated 15.2.2011 the revision has been allowed and the orders passed by the Collector as well as Commissioner have been set aside.

5. Challenging the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that a lease deed was granted in favour of father of the petitioner, i.e. Ghogha Choudhary in the year 1971. Thereafter, an application was filed by Ghogha for his declaration as Bhumiswami and ultimately by order dated 6.7.1988 passed by the Tahsildar, Ghogha was declared Bhumiswami. Taking advantage of illiteracy of father of the petitioner, the respondents got a sale-deed executed on 26.7.1988. It is submitted that since the land in question was a lease land and, therefore, alienation of the same with permission of the Collector was necessary in the light of section 165(7-b) of the Code and since the sale-deed was executed without obtaining the said permission, therefore, the Collector had rightly set aside the sale-deed dated 26.7.1988 executed in favour of the respondents.

6. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had failed to prove that Ghogha was a Govt. lessee, in fact Ghogha was the owner of the property in dispute and had full right to alienate the same. Furthermore, it is submitted that the petitioner has not placed copy of Patta to show that any lease was granted to Ghogha by the Govt. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Board of Revenue has rightly set aside the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner.

7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties. 8. It is true that Patta has not been placed on record. However, the respondents have filed a copy of the agreement to sell as annexure R/1/1. The opening lines of para 2 of the said agreement reads as under :-

“ pawdh tehu HkwfeLokeh ugha gS blfy, eSa viuk HkwfeLokeh cuokmaxk vkSj tc HkwfeLokeh cu tkosxh rc vkidks fyf[kr lwpuk nwaxk ,slh lwpuk ds 15 fnu ds vanj cSukek fy[kkdj jftLVªh gks tkuk pkfg, ijUrq ;g dqy dk;Z eSa vanj rhu ekg ds djk ywaxkA”

9. The petitioner has filed a copy of the application filed by Ghogha before the Naib Tahsildar, Katni for his declaration as Bhumiswami.

In the said application, it is mentioned that Ghogha was granted lease in respect of Khasra No.113/6, area 2.023 hectares and he has complied with all conditions of the lease, therefore, he has acquired Bhumiswami rights. The Naib Tahsildar, Katni by order dated 6.7.1988 declared Ghogha as Bhumiswami of the aforesaid land and, immediately thereafter, the land was purchased by the respondents on 26.7.1988.

10. So far as the contention raised by counsel for the respondent that there is nothing on record to indicate that the land in question was a lease land is concerned, the same cannot be accepte