Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1132 (MP)

Ashish Gupta v. State of M. P.

2014-09-09

S.R.WAGHMARE

body2014
ORDER 1. By this petition the petitioners have challenged the refusal by respondents No.2 Sub-Registrar, Properties and Assurances, Barwani from registering the sale deed sought to be executed by the petitioners. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners had entered into a sale deed regarding the land owned by petitioners and had prayed for registering of the same before the Sub-Registrar who refused to register the same, stating that permission was required under section 165 (6-a) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. 3. Counsel of the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that such refusal is unilateral; without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Counsel submitted that the petitioners had done nothing which was contrary to the provisions of law and even if the provisions of section 165(6-a) are considered they are applicable to bhumiswamy, whereas all the present petitioners are agriculturists and the provisions are not attracted. Besides Counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Gopal Patidar and others v. State of M.P. passed in WP No.2032/14 whereby this Court had held that the respondent No.2 shall assign reasons for refusal to grant permission and had disposed of the petition with such directions. “3. From perusal of record, it appears that while refusing to register the document neither any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner nor documents which were filed before this Court were not before respondent No.2. In view of this, petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a short direction that upon production of copy of the order passed by this Court and also with necessary documents which are annexed with the petition along with copies of law laid down in the matter of Kamal Singh and Babulal (supra) are submitted before the respondent No.2, then, the respondent No.2 shall either allow the petitioner to get the sale deed executed or shall assign the reason why the petitioner is not entitled to get the sale deed executed. Needful be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed by this Court along with application and necessary documents.” 4. Counsel urged that since the petitioners were not aboriginal tribes under section 165(6-a) are not attracted in the present case. Counsel prayed that the petitioners would be satisfied if the similar directions would be issued in the present case also. 5. Counsel urged that since the petitioners were not aboriginal tribes under section 165(6-a) are not attracted in the present case. Counsel prayed that the petitioners would be satisfied if the similar directions would be issued in the present case also. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged the fact that the present petition is squarely covered by the order passed in W.P. No.5767/2014 by this Court on 8.8.2014. 6. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that he has no objection if the case of the petitioner is allowed to reconsider the case on the fresh grounds and the ratio laid down in the matter of Kiran Khode v. State of M.P. and others passed in WP No.10704/13. 7. In view of the above, the following directions are passed on consent. The directions which have been issued in the case of Kiran Khode (supra) shall be examined, if they shall apply to the case of the present petitioner the respondents are directed to decide the case of the petitioners afresh within four weeks from receipt of copy of this order and Counsel is directed to supply the necessary documents along with the application. The petition is accordingly disposed of.