ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 23.7.2021 and letter dated 26.7.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Rau, District Indore.

2. According to the petitioner, he being a co-owner purchased the land bearing Survey Nos. 1464/2, 1464/3, 1464/4, 1464/5, 1464/6, 1464/7, 1464/8 and 1464/9 by registered sale-deed dated 10.8.2010 from the erstwhile owner viz. Sudarshan Bansal, Saket Housing Pvt. Ltd., Abhishek Bansal; and Siraj Khan. The aforesaid erstwhile owners purchased the aforesaid land in the year 1998 by registered sale-deed from Vishwa Bhihari Awasthi who happens to be father-in-law of respondent No.6. The names of all the subsequent purchasers were mutated in the revenue record.

3. Respondent No.2 registered the case suo motu on 23.3.2021 without issuing any notice to the petitioner and passed an order of injunction in respect of alienation of flats and premises constructed after due permission from Town & Country epartment. According to the petitioner, after purchase of the aforesaid land, permission from Town & Country Planning Department, Municipal Corporation, Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), SDO were taken and thereafter, the land was developed.

Therefore, the SDO without any authority and without any provision of law under the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) has wrongly restrained the developers to sale the property. The petitioner immediately approached the SDO and filed an application for vacating stay on 27.3.2021 along with all the necessary documents. On 7.7.2021 the SDO heard the arguments and posted for orders on the said application. Instead of deciding the application for vacating stay, the SDO has passed the final order directing the Tehsildar to submit the report about the status of the aforesaid land and also directed for registration of a suo motu case u/s. 115 of the MPLRC. After passing the aforesaid order, the SDO further directed the Sub Registrar, Registration for not registering any sale-deed in regard to the project of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

4. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after purchasing the land in question by way of registered sale-deed the petitioner applied for diversion of the land. The land was diverted and thereafter the lay-out was approved by the Town & Country Planning Department vide order dated 24.1.2013. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation also granted the building permission on 23.4.2015. The permission under Rule 27 of the M.P. Bhoomi vikas Niyam, 2012 was also granted by the Municipal Corporation for construction of multi-storied building of six floors, basement and parking. The RERA has also approved the project in the name of “Lal Bagh Life”. After completion of the construction in accordance with law, the SDO has wrongly passed the order u/s. 115 of the MPLRC and wrongly directed the Sub Registrar, Registration not to register any sale-deed. The provisions u/s. 115 of the MPLRC have wrongly been invoked by the SDO without taking approval from the Collector as required under Proviso to Section 115.

5. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have filed the reply by submitting that the land in question was registered in the name of “Mahadev Mandir. Later on, the name of private persons were recorded as Bhoomi Swami in the revenue record by virtue of order of Hon'ble the Governor dated 29.10.1971. Such entries in Khasra Khatauni appears to be false and without knowledge of the revenue authorities. The land stood in the name of Mahadev Mandir would be treated in the name of Deity which is perpetual minor. Thereafter all the subsequent sales and partitions are contrary to the settled position of law. The State being the owner of the properties is always having authority to examine the title. It is submitted that in case of Satlujlal Vidyut Nigam V/s. Rajkumar Rajendra Singh (D