Section 165(7B) MPLRC: Not Applicable to Transfers by Will?

In the realm of Madhya Pradesh land laws, one common query arises: Is Section 165(7B) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) applicable to transfers by will? Landowners, heirs, and legal practitioners often grapple with this issue, especially when navigating inheritance through testamentary succession. This blog post delves into the legal nuances, drawing from judicial precedents and statutory interpretations to clarify why such transfers typically fall outside the scope of this provision. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your situation.

Understanding the Core Issue: Devolution vs. Transfer

At the heart of the debate is the distinction between devolution of property and transfer. A will operates as a testamentary instrument, effecting devolution upon the testator's death through succession laws, rather than an inter vivos transfer like a sale. Section 165(7B) MPLRC primarily imposes restrictions on Bhumiswamis (landholders) from transferring land—especially sales—without the Collector's prior permission. However, it does not explicitly extend to wills. Ramesh Chaudhary VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2016)

The provision begins with a non-obstante clause, overriding certain other rules but targeting sale transactions specifically, not testamentary dispositions. As noted in legal analyses, Section 165(7-b) primarily restricts Bhumiswamis from selling land without Collector’s permission, and it does not explicitly prohibit transfers via will. Its scope is limited to certain transfer modes, notably sale, and does not extend to testamentary dispositions. State of M. P. VS Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Mydt. , Gwalior - Madhya PradeshState Of M.P. vs Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit,Gwalior - Madhya Pradesh

This interpretation aligns with broader principles under MPLRC, where pre-existing rights of Bhumiswamis, including the ability to declare successors by will, remain unaffected. State of M. P. VS Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Mydt. , Gwalior - Madhya PradeshState Of M.P. vs Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit,Gwalior - Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Precedents and Key Findings

Courts have consistently upheld that testamentary succession is distinct from transfers requiring permission. In the case of Rajalal and another v. Komal Singh and another (2014 RN 149), the precedent reinforces that a will represents devolution of rights upon death, not a transfer. Petitioners challenging revenue authority orders have successfully argued this point, asserting that Section 165(7B) does not apply. Ramesh Chaudhary VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2016)

Revenue authorities' orders dismissing revisions have been critiqued as non-speaking orders, lacking adequate reasoning. This procedural flaw can be leveraged in higher judicial reviews to emphasize the distinction. Ramesh Chaudhary VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2016)

Further support comes from related provisions. For instance, He also relied upon section 164 and 165 of MPLRC to bring home the analogy that Bhumiswami can declare his successor by way of Will and no restriction of transfer by way of Will exists in MPLRC. Hariprasad Bairagi VS Radheshyam - 2021 Supreme(MP) 592 - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 592 This underscores that no explicit bar exists on wills under these sections.

Related Provisions: Section 165(6) and Broader Context

While focusing on 165(7B), it's useful to contextualize with Section 165(6), which prohibits transfers or sales of land in scheduled areas or belonging to aboriginal tribes without permission. However, this too does not automatically void such transactions; violations are addressed under Section 170. Therefore, under sub-section (6) of Section 165 of the MPLRC there is only a prohibition on the transfer or sale of land in the scheduled area and land belonging to an aboriginal tribe... It is submitted that the sale-deeds are liable to be declared as void under section 170 and not under... Aishwarya Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10133 - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10133Jagdishprasad Swami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6059 - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6059Sheikh Salim vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5552 - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5552

Applications under 165(6) filed long after transactions (e.g., sales prior to 1976 but challenged in 2021) have led Collectors to declare non-compliance, but the emphasis remains on sales, not wills. Aishwarya Verma VS State of M. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 357

These insights reinforce that transfers by will are not covered under Section 165(7B) because the section addresses sales and permissions for living transfers. Transfers by will are not covered under Section 165(7-b) because the section specifically addresses sale transactions and the requirement of permission from the Collector. State of M. P. VS Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Mydt. , Gwalior - Madhya PradeshState Of M.P. vs Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit,Gwalior - Madhya Pradesh

Practical Implications for Landowners and Heirs

For Bhumiswamis in Madhya Pradesh, understanding this can prevent unnecessary challenges to inheritances:

• No Prior Permission Needed: Wills typically bypass 165(7B) restrictions, allowing seamless devolution to named beneficiaries.
• Mutation and Registers: Patwaris maintain mutation registers under Rules 24 and 32, with Tahsildars deciding disputes based on title, supporting will-based successions. Hariprasad Bairagi VS Radheshyam - 2021 Supreme(MP) 592 - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 592
• Challenging Invalid Orders: If revenue bodies issue non-speaking dismissals, highlight precedents like Rajalal in revisions or writs. Ramesh Chaudhary VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2016)
• Scheduled Areas Caution: Even for wills, verify if land falls under 165(6) protections for tribal lands, though wills generally remain valid. Aishwarya Verma VS State of M. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 357

In appeals against writ dismissals under 165(6), courts have examined compliance rigorously, but again, the focus is sales. Sukhwati Tekam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2737 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2737

Board of Revenue orders under delegated powers (e.g., via Section 7 MPLRC) may be reviewable under Sections 51 and 56, providing additional recourse. Tukojirao Puar (Deceased) Through L. Rs. Shrimant Gayatri Raje Puar VS Board of Revenue - 2020 Supreme(MP) 941 - 2020 0 Supreme(MP) 941Tukojirao Puar (Deceased) Through L. Rs. Shrimant Gayatri Raje Puar VS Board of Revenue - 2020 Supreme(MP) 947 - 2020 0 Supreme(MP) 947

Analysis: Why Wills Escape These Restrictions

The law distinguishes transfer modes:

1. Inter Vivos Transfers (sales, gifts): Require Collector nod under 165(7B).
2. Testamentary Transfers: Devolution post-death, governed by succession laws like the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The law distinguishes between different modes of transfer; restrictions on sale or transfer without permission do not extend to testamentary dispositions, which are governed by different legal principles. State of M. P. VS Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Mydt. , Gwalior - Madhya PradeshState Of M.P. vs Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit,Gwalior - Madhya Pradesh

Analogies from other laws, like vehicle transfers under Section 9(2), show provisions apply only to specific scenarios: If the transfer is not by the registered owner and it is not to any other person then Section 9(2) will not apply. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Thru. Shahid Ans VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport - 2019 Supreme(All) 2246 - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 2246 While not directly MPLRC, it illustrates narrow scoping.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Generally, Section 165(7B) MPLRC does not apply to transfers by will, treating them as devolution rather than restricted transfers. Supported by precedents like Rajalal (2014 RN 149) and analyses confirming no will-specific prohibitions, landowners can confidently rely on testamentary instruments. Ramesh Chaudhary VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2016)Hariprasad Bairagi VS Radheshyam - 2021 Supreme(MP) 592 - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 592State of M. P. VS Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Mydt. , Gwalior - Madhya PradeshState Of M.P. vs Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit,Gwalior - Madhya Pradesh

Key Takeaways:- Assert the devolution-transfer distinction in disputes.- Challenge non-speaking orders procedurally.- Verify land status (e.g., scheduled areas) for added caution.- Seek professional advice for case-specific application.

This interpretation promotes fair succession while upholding MPLRC's protective intent for land sales. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence—land laws can shift with new rulings.

(Word count: 1028. References are from provided legal documents for informational purposes only.)

#MPLRCLaw, #WillTransfer, #LandRevenueCode