Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 699 (MP)

Madanlal v. Munnilal

2013-06-25

S.K.GANGELE

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 26-06-2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Revision Case No.254/2004-05. 3. Arjan filed an application under section 170 of MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as “the Code’’] before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Basoda. He pleaded that he was granted a lease of land area 2.091 hectare situate at village Barri, however, Munnilal (respondent No.1 herein) had taken possession of the land and he also recorded his name as owner of the land. Applicant Arjan pleaded that he did not execute any sale deed or mortgage deed. The appropriate authority has observed that applicant Arjana was the owner of the land and his name was recorded as owner of the land in the year 1973-74. Subsequently, it was mentioned in the revenue record that Munnilal purchased the land in a consideration of Rs.400/- on 10-06-1966 from Arjana. The Sub-Divisional Officer further observed that applicant Arjana is Sahariya caste belonging to member of Scheduled Tribe. Hence, as per provisions of section 165(6) of the Code, a prior permission from the Collector was necessary before purchasing the land. Because no such permission was taken, hence, the transfer is void. It is further observed by the authority that 10 bighas of land was purchased in a consideration of Rs. 400/- which is also suspicious circumstance. Consequently, the authority vide order dated 2.7.1990 set aside the transaction and ordered that the land shall be returned back to applicant Arjan or his legal representatives. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by respondent No. 1 Munnilal before the Collector, Vidisha and that was dismissed by the the Collector vide order dated 29.6.1992 and confirmed the order dated 2.7.1990 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Against the order dated 29.6.1992, a revision was filed by respondent No.1 Munnilal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 22.7.1993 remanded the matter back with an observation that Arjan has died, therefore, his legal representatives be brought on record. After remand, the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 28.3.2003 directed to substitute the name of legal representatives of deceased Arjan on record. Against the order dated 28.3.2003, a revision was filed by respondent No. 1 Munnilal before the Additional Collector, Vidisha and that revision was dismissed by the Additional Collector vide order dated 17.8.2005. After remand, the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 28.3.2003 directed to substitute the name of legal representatives of deceased Arjan on record. Against the order dated 28.3.2003, a revision was filed by respondent No. 1 Munnilal before the Additional Collector, Vidisha and that revision was dismissed by the Additional Collector vide order dated 17.8.2005. Thereafter, again against the order dated 17.8.2005, another revision was filed by respondent No.1 Munnilal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal and it was allowed by the authority vide impugned order dated 26.6.2007 and the authority remanded the matter back with an observation that LRs of deceased Arjan be brought on record. 4. In my opinion, the authority has committed an error of law in remanding the matter back again. It is an admitted fact that Arjan was Sahariya by caste belonging to member of Scheduled Tribe. Hence, in accordance with the provisions of section 165(6) of the Code, the land could not be purchased by respondent no.1 without sanction from the Collector. Apart from this, the land was purchased in a consideration of Rs. 400/-. Hence, the Sub-Divisional Officer has rightly set aside the transaction and ordered that the land be returned back to applicant Arjan or his legal representatives.The Additional Commissioner vide impugned order remanded the matter back. The revision was filed by respondent No.1 Munnilal who was purchaser of the land. In my opinion, respondent No.1 Munnilal has no authority to file a revision challenging the status of legal representatives. Once it is held that he had no right to purchase the land; transaction was void, then he had no right to question the status of legal representatives of Arjan. Hence, the order is against the law. 5. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 26-06-2007 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. LRs of the respondent No.1 are directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the petitioner.