Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6674

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUG COLLECTOR AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
NANJIRAM AND OTHERS – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No. 1032 of 2025 | WRIT APPEAL No. 1042 of 2025 | WRIT APPEAL No. 1043 of 2025 | WRIT APPEAL No. 1047 of 2025 | WRIT APPEAL No. 1048 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Sudeep Bhargava
For the Respondents: Shri Vishal Baheti, Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Shri Yash Pal Rathore

Section 165(7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code does not apply retrospectively to rights accrued before its enactment.

Headnote:(A) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 165(7-b) - Writ appeals challenging the order permitting petitioners to alienate land without permission - The writ Court held that the provision does not apply retrospectively to rights already accrued before its insertion. (Paras 1-9)

(B) Appeal - The consistent view of the Court regarding the prospectivity of Section 165(7-b) was highlighted, supporting the decision. (Paras 7-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners purchased land and sought permission to sell it. Permission was denied based on objections, but it was later granted by a higher authority, which led to a legal dispute about whether the new legislation applied to prior rights.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that accrued rights under previous legislation should not be negated by later amendments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the rights obtained prior to the enactment of Section 165(7-b) should be respected as they were confirmed before the law's introduction, maintaining the status of ownership.

Result: Writ appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts concerning permission to alienate the land. (Para 1 , 2)

ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia The State of Madhya Pradesh and others have filed these writ appeals under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging the order dated 11.12.2024, whereby the writ Court has allowed the W.P. No.39448/2024 and permitted petitioners to alienate their land without permission under Section 165 (7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as " MPLRC ").

2. About the similitude in the controversy involved in these writ appeals they are being heard analogously and decided by a common Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN order. For the sake of convenience facts of Writ Appeal No. 1032/2025 are taken.

3. The facts of the case, in short, are as follows:-

3.2 The petitioners purchased the land situated in Village Rangwasa, Tahsil Rau, District Indore. The details of the land are as under:-

Bhumiswami	Survey Nos.	Area
Petitioner No.1 to 2	4/5, 4/23/, 4/41	1.076 H
Petitioner No.3 to 6	1/2/10,4/15, 4/34/ 4/52	1.076 H
Petitioner No.7	1/2/4, 4/10, 4/28, 4/46	1.076 H
Petitioner No.8	4/2, 4/20, 4/38	1.076 H
Petitioner No.9	1/2/6, 4/11, 4/30, 4/48	1.076 H
Petitioner No.10 & 11	1/2/9, 4/14, 4/33, 4/51	1.076 H

3.3 The writ petitioners approached the Collector, Indore, in order to seek permission under Section 165 (7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, before execution of the sale deed. The Collector directed the Subordinate Revenue Officers to submit a report. The Sub- Divisional Officer submitted objections concerning the alienation of the lands, despite the fact that the revenue officer in its report had found that the lands mentioned above are rocky and unirrigated. According to the order dated 04.12.2023, the permission to sell was denied by the collector. The writ petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Indore, which came to be allowed vide order dated

05.01.2024 by granting permission to sell the lands in question.

3.4 The writ petitioners sold their land by a registered sale deed dated 31.01.2024 and purchased the more fertile land by another sale deed dated 23.03.2024. The respondent No.2, in exercise of suo motu power, took up all the matters and reviewed its earlier order dated 05.01.2024 by passing a fresh order dated 06.02.2024 by dismissing the appeal. The writ petitioners approached this Court by way of W.P. No.4220 of 2024, which came to be allowed vide order dated 22.02.2024, remanding the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN matter back to the respondent No.2.

3.5 The respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 07.10.2024, the commissioner again dismissed the appeal on the ground that if the permission to sale is given, the writ petitioners would be landless. Hence, the writ petitioners approached the writ Court by way of writ petition inter alia on the ground that the provision of Section 165 (7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 does not have any retrospective effect, hence they are not required to take permission before sale.

3.6 It was further submitted that the writ petitioners had acquired the Bhumiswami right before the insertion of Section 165 (7-b) in the MPLRC ; therefore, the same would not apply in the case of the petitioners. The writ petitioners placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Adhunik Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti v. State (2013 Revenue Nirnay 8).

3.7 The State Government opposed the writ petition; however, the writ Court has allowed the writ petition by placing reliance on a judgment passed in Bharat Singh and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others (W.P. No.1117/2021) and State of M.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and another vs. Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1752. The writ Court vide order dated 11.12.2024 has held that the Bhumiswami right had already been accrued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document