IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL th ON THE 10 OF JULY, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 11995 of 2007 BETWEEN:-

PHULLE ALIAS PHOOL CHAND S/O POORAN NAI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MAZDOOR AND BARBOUR, R/O VILL.KIRROD TAH. BINA DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI ABHISHEK TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. NARAYAN S/O LATE RAM PRASAD SARAF R/O VILL.ACHAWAL WARD BINA TAH. BINA DISTT.

SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. PHUJJA S/O LATE RAM PRASAD SARAF R/O VILL.ACHAWAL WARD BINA TAH. BINA DISTT.

SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. GANESH RAM, S/O NATHURAM R/O VILL.ACHAWAL WARD BINA TAH. BINA DISTT.

SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SANTOSH SINGH, S/O GANESH RAM R/O VILL.KORROD TAH.BINA DISTT.SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. THE COLLECTOR DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BINA DISTT. SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAJEEV BARKUR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the Signature Not Verified following:

ORDER

In first round learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to point out that provisions of M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke liye Krishi Bhumi- Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadpane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 has retrospective application. Now he has chosen not to appear.

In Section 2 (a) "appointed day" is mentioned as 1st day of January, 1971. Thus, when from this prospective, impugned order is examined, then it is evident that it is mentioned in the impugned order that the sale transaction had taken place in the year 1963 and it is not covered with the provisions of the Act of 1976 which was given assent by the President in the year 1977.

At this stage, learned counsel appears and submits that his case is covered with the decision of a Coordinate Bench in the case of Mannu and others Vs. Collector, Tikamgarh and others, 2007(3) MPLJ 216, wherein it is held that all prohibited transactions of loan subsisting on the appointed day can be reopened by SDO, who has requisite jurisdiction. It is necessary to point out that sale deed of 03/07/1965 was sought to be declared to be null and void by filing an application on 12/01/1982. No loan transaction was subsisting on the said day. Therefore, since the earlier transaction are not covered by the Act of 1976, this Court is of the opinion that there is no irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Collector, Sagar calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

Signature Not Verified JUDGE ts