Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2737
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK, JUSTICE HIRDESH, JJ
Sukhwati Tekam – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WA 566/2025
Vibhor Kumar Sahu,Advocate General
Permission under Section 165(6) of MPLRC is mandatory for land transfer by Scheduled Tribe members to non-tribals, ensuring protection of tribal land rights.
Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 - Section 2(1) - Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) - Section 165(6) - Intra-Court appeal against dismissal of writ petition regarding land transfer by Scheduled Tribe members - The court held that permission under Section 165(6) of MPLRC is mandatory for land transfer by members of aboriginal tribes to non-tribals, and without such permission, the transfer is invalid. (Paras 1, 5, 6)
(B) Legal Principles - The necessity of obtaining permission from a Revenue Officer for land transactions involving Scheduled Tribe members is emphasized, reinforcing the protection of tribal land rights. (Paras 6, 7)
(C) Findings of Court - The learned Single Judge's findings were based on the facts and correctly applied legal principles, leading to the conclusion that the appeal lacked merit. (Paras 8, 9)
(D) Issues - The main issue was whether the appellants could transfer land without obtaining the necessary permission under MPLRC. (Paras 5, 6) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court affirmed that the requirement for permission under Section 165(6) of MPLRC is a legal safeguard for tribal land, and the learned Single Judge's order was upheld as correct and justified. (Paras 7, 8) (F) Result - Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
Per: Justice Hirdesh
The instant intra-Court appeal under Section 2 (1)7 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam , 2005 is preferred by the appellants assailing the order dated 20th of January, 2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4332 of 2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants (petitioners therein) has been dismissed. Reliefs sought by appellants are as under:-
"(7) 1. The impugned order dated 20.1.2025 passed in WP No. 4332/202023 by learned Single Judge, Hon'ble Justice Shri Milind Ramesh Phadke Ji ji may kindly be pleased to set aside/quashed in the interest of justice.
2. That, the impugned order dated 29/09/18 Annexure P/1 in the aforesaid petition passed by the respondent no.2 may kindly be set aside.
3. That, the order dated 16/08/17 Annexure P/2 passed by the respondent no.3 may kindly be set aside.
4. That, the respondent may be directed to provide the salary increment to appellant which are not affected by the order dated 16/08/17 (Annexure P/2) and also all other consequential benefits in this respect.
5. That, in alternative to above relief, respondent may be directed to provide the proper opportunity of hearing to appellant and to consider the matter of disciplinary action against the appellant afresh.
6. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner.
In a narrow compass, the facts of the case are that appellants entered into an agreement with M/s.Sant Shri Sudhasagar Builders and Developers vide agreement to sell dated 22-07-2022, claiming themselves to be members of Scheduled Tribe and for residential purposes, they applied for diversion of land bearing Survey Nos. 40/01, 40/02, 40/03, 48/01 and 48/02 situated in village Borkheda Gird, Patwari Halka No.55, Tehsil Guna, District Guna and sought permission from the Town and Country Planning for development of residential colony in the said land. In pursuance of granting permission from Town and Country Planning dated 20-10-2022, thereafter appellants applied before the SDO (Revenue), Guna in respect of development permission for construction of colony. The SDO (Revenue), in turn, called report from the Tahsildar. On the basis of report, the SDO (Revenue) vide order dated 30-01-2023, rejected the application of appellants stating that appellants belong to Scheduled Tribe and there is a bar of Section 165(6) of MPLRC . Being aggrieved, the appellants filed a writ petition before the writ Court and the same has been dismissed vide order impugned. Hence, this appeal.
It is contended on behalf of appellants that the land in question diverted for residential purpose and the provisions under Section 165(6) of MPLRC are limited to agriculture. Denial of permission for development of land is made only on the ground of applicability of Section 165(6) of MPLRC , but overlooking such aspect, the writ Court had passed the order impugned which is manifest, illegal and contrary to law.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State supported the order impugned and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as record.
Provisions of Section 165(6) of MPLRC read as under:-
"6) [Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the right of bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe by the State Government by a notification in that behalf, for the whole or part of the area to which this Code applies shall-
(i)in such areas as are predominately inhabited by aboriginal tribes and from such date as the State Government may, by notification, specify, not be transferred nor it shall be transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a consequence of transaction of loan to a person not belonging to such tribe in the area specified in the notification;
(ii)in areas other than those specified in the notification
