IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 18 OF DECEMBER, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 38628 of 2024 RAOOF KHAN Versus SMT. KANTABAI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri V.K. Bhardwaj- Senior Advocate with Shri Rohit Bansal-

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri G.K. Agrawal- Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

"In view of the facts and grounds mentioned in the misc. petition and further in view of the documents annexed hereto, the humble petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the misc. petition quashing/setting aside the impugned orders dtd.23.9.2022, 29.7.2022 and 25.6.2019 (Annexure P/1 to P/3) passed by learned revenue courts and application (Annexure P/7) filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice."

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner filed an application under Section 165(7-b) read with Section 159 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code") contending inter alia that Survey No.128/2013 area 0.008 hectare situated in village Shamshabad was of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN ownership of father of petitioner, namely, Imrat Khan. Imrat Khan was given Bhumiswami rights by Tahsildar in Case No.90/A-6-A/1980-81 under the M.P. Vaassthan Dakhalkar (Bhumiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1980 (for brevity "the Adhiniyam"). After the death of Imrat Khan, petitioner received 1/3 share along with his siblings Mehboob Khan and Fatma Bi. Petitioner took a loan of Rs.30,000/- from respondent No.2 Shivcharan Sahu which was repaid. However, for security of loan, paper work was done in the name of wife of respondent No.2 on 07.06.1993. Although sale-deed dated 07.06.1993 was a sham document, but with dishonest intention respondents No.1 and 2 got the mutation done in their favour by order dated 04.06.2012. The order of mutation in the records of Nagar Panchayat was assailed by the petitioner by filing appeal before the Collector under Section 307 of M.P. Municipalities Act. The Collector vide order dated 12.03.2013 remitted the matter back to Nagar Panchayat, Shamshabad for reconsideration of application afresh. The aforesaid order was challenged by respondent No.1 by filing WP. No.7033/2013 which was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 20.07.2016 and the order of Collector was maintained and Chief Municipal Officer was directed to accord opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties.

3. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Section 165 read with 159 of the Code before Collector, Vidisha praying for declaration of sale-deed dated 07.06.2013 as null and void.

4. The Collector, Vidisha by order dated 25.06.2019 passed in Case No.3/A-39/2017-18 dismissed the application.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal which was registered as Case No.363/Appeal/2019-2020 which too was dismissed by order dated 29.07.2022. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred a review which was registered as Case No.14/Review/2022-23 which too has been dismissed by order dated 23.09.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal.

6. Challenging the orders passed by the Revenue Courts, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that if the sale deed was executed in violation of provisions of Section 165(7-b) of the Code, then sale deed can be set aside by the Collector. It is further submitted that this Court by order dated 05.08.2021 passed in Badshah Barela (deleted) through LRs & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Others has held that a Government lessee cannot dispose of the land within 10 years of grant of lease and thereafter the land can be alienated only after obtaining due permission from the