ORDER Brijraj Narain, President At the time of the abolition of proprietary rights on 31-3-51, Survey No. 12 /3 of village Kherdana was recorded as 'Khudkasht' land of Ladobai-and others. u/s 38 (1) of the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act (Act I of 1951), malik-makbuza rights accrued in this survey number in favour of the proprietors, who were 'Korkus' by caste. 'Korku' is an aboriginal tribe within the meaning of Section 3 of C.P. Land Alienation Act. On 17-7-52 the land under dispute was sold to applicants, who were non-aborigines. On 16-9-52 non-applicant No. 1 Anarbai presented an application to the Deputy Commissioner for declaring the transaction as null and void u/s 4 of the Land Alienation Act. The Deputy Commissioner forwarded her application to tahsil for inquiry and report and on receipt of the report set aside the sale and ordered to treat the alienation as an usufructuary mortgage for a period of 5 years from the date of transfer u/s 6 (i) of the CP. Land Alienation Act. Against this order, the applicants have preferred this appeal. The appeal being time-barred the Appellants requested to treat it as revision. The appeal was heard as revision. Counsel for the parties were heard. The main contention of the applicants is that the Deputy Commissioner erred in law in directing the possession of the field to be delivered to Anarbai after a period of 5 years. He failed to interpret Sections 14 and 6 (I) (a) of the Land Alienation Act, correctly. Looking to the circumstances of the case the period of usufructary mortgage which has been fixed for 5 years is unreasonable. The Counsel for non-applicant No. 1 argued that the Deputy Commissioner had rightly intervened and his order should stand. In this case, the non-applicants being 'Korkus' by caste, could not alienate their land to a person who was not an aboriginal without the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly the non-applicants Nos. 2 to 4 made application to the Deputy Commissioner, in Rev. Case No. 3 S.H. XVIII/l/51 for obtaining permission to sell their fields but the same was rejected on 24-3-1951, Thereafter the non-applicants Nos. 2 to 4 sold the land to the applicants on 17-7-52 and got the deeds registered u/s 18 of the Land Alienation Act misleading the Registrar by giving their caste as 'Thakur'. Case No. 3 S.H. XVIII/l/51 for obtaining permission to sell their fields but the same was rejected on 24-3-1951, Thereafter the non-applicants Nos. 2 to 4 sold the land to the applicants on 17-7-52 and got the deeds registered u/s 18 of the Land Alienation Act misleading the Registrar by giving their caste as 'Thakur'. The Naib-Tahsildar, in his report, stated that this alienation should take effect as an usufractuary mortgage for a period of 20 years u/s 14 of the Land Alienation Act. But the Deputy Commissioner permitted this alienation to take effect as usufructuary mortgage only for a period of 5 years and ordered the delivery of the possession to Anarbai on 19-9-57. It has been argued that the maximum period allowed for usufructuary mortgage u/s 6 (i) (a) being 20 years the period of 5 years ordered by the Deputy Commissioner is not at all reasonable. Besides, this, Anarbai is in no way entitled to get back the land under dispute since she is neither mortgagor nor a person in any way entitled to the property of the vendors. The plea of the applicants sounds to be reasonable since Anarbai has nothing to do with this land. She herself in her application dated 16-9-52, has stated that she is a presumptive heir to the widows. The Deputy Commissioner has not given any reasons for transferring the possession of the land to Anarbai. Besides, Section 14 of the Land Alienation Act permits an usufructuary mortgage for 20 years but in this case the Deputy Commissioner has reduced the period to 5 years without assigning any reason for doing so. The revision is, therefore, accepted to the extent that the alienation will take effect as usufructuary mortgage for a period of 10 years instead of 5 years. The possession of land under dispute should be delivered to non-applicants Nos. 2 to 4 on 17-7-62. The parties may bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed