ORDER Jaiswal, J. -- 1. Petitioner has filed this pro bono publico petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the action of the respondents – State as well as transfer of the land in question on the basis of general power of attorney and thereafter, further allegation by executing registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.14 - M/s. Hanuman Trading Company is non–est on the ground that the land was allotted on special patta on 15.4.1953, for establishment of oil mill to M/s. Jahangir Oil Mill. The land was Government (Nazul land) allotted on patta under section 101 of Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act, 1950. The patta was for specific purpose and was conditional to the effect that if the patta holder uses the land in contravention to the terms and conditions of the patta then the same shall be cancelled. The said allottee had given the land to another person for establishment of godown and thereafter, general power of attorney was executed in favour of Tehmpton Anklesaria for managing, controlling and looking the aforesaid patta, but the general power of attorney holder who belongs from the same Parsi community transferred the land in the name of his wife Nina, sons and their children and wife of the son on 29.1.1994. Thereafter, further sale deed was executed by Tehmpton Anklesaria and transferred the land to the partner of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company by way of registered sale deed vide (Annexure P-5). The petitioner who was Municipal Corporator at the time of filing of the writ petition of ward No.14 where the land in question is situated is assailing the same on the ground that the general power of attorney holder had no right to transfer the land to their family and thereafter further transferred in the favour of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company on the ground that patta was granted in the year 1953 for other than agriculture purpose, i.e., for establishment of oil mill and thus the patta holder had not acquired any Bhumiswami right and, therefore, transfer and alienation through power of attorney is no-nest. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an area of 2.240 hectares of (old survey No.1409/1 and 1410) Survey No.86 was granted on special patta dated 15.4.1953 for setting up oil mill vide Annexure P-1. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an area of 2.240 hectares of (old survey No.1409/1 and 1410) Survey No.86 was granted on special patta dated 15.4.1953 for setting up oil mill vide Annexure P-1. Clause 3 and 4 of the special patta reads as under :- ik-ua- 99&52 Lis'ky iV~Vk rglhy dk;kZy; js;rokjh xk¡oks ds fy;s iV~Vk xk¡o dk uke jryke] rglhy jryke] ftyk jryke e-iz- Ñ"kd dk uke rFkk irk mlds firk dk uke & Mqxkath csgjke th ,.M d- ikjlh lkfdu jryke- [kljk ua- jdck fdLe tehu jsV yxku tek igyh fdLr nwljh dSQh;r fdLr 1409&1 ikSus vkB 75 1410&2 lok rhu ,dM+ 414&12 207&7 207&7 2 lokX;k;k chxk 414&12 206&6 206&6 Lis'ky iV~Vsnkj blds }kjk Åij of.kZr {ks= esa iV~Vsnkj d`"kd LoRo mDr Mqaxkth firk csgjketh tkfr ikjlh dks iznku fd;s tkrs gSA fnukad 15-9-1953 g- rglhynkj 17-4-1953 jk-jk- jsosU;q lsØsVsjh lkgc eky foHkkx] e-Hkk- 'kklu Xokfy;j ds vkns'k Øekad 16181 oh 51] 12-4-1951 vk/kkj Jheku v.Mj lsdsVjh lkgc ds vkns'k Øekad 16181 dh & 12-4-1951 dh izfrfyfi Jheku lqck lkgc fiykjryke dh vksj ls vkns'k Øekad 6171] 18&4&51 o 1405] 2&2&53 }kjk izkIr gksus ij e-Hkk- eky izca/k rFkk jsosU;q vkxe d`"kdkf/kdkj fo/kku l-2007 dh /kkjk 101¼1½ ds vUrxZr 'kklu us d`f"k ds vk'k;ksa ls vfrfjDr vU; vk'k;ksa ds fy;s vFkkZr ehy cukus ds fy;s [kkrsnkj etdqj dks uhps fy[kh 'krksZ ij Lis'ky iV~Vs ij nh tkuk Lohd`r fd;k gSA 1- bl tehu dk yxku #i;s 75&00 izfr ,dM+ lkykuk iV~Vsnkj dks nsuk gksxkA bl yxku esa izR;sd lsVyesaV ds le; ifjorZu fd;k tk ldsxkA 2- ;g tehu ftl xSjdk'rdkjh dk;ks± ds fy;s nh tk jgh gS mlh dke ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh dke ds fy;s iV~Vsnkj mldk mi;ksx ugh dj ldrk gSA 3- 'kklu dh Lohd`fr ds fcuk iV~Vsnkj bl tehu dks fdlh dks VªkalQj ugh dj ldsxkA ;fn 'kklu us tehu dks VªkalQj djus dh Lohd`fr nh rks VªkalQj ---- O;fDr ds uke ij gksxk mlds fy;s u;k iV~Vk nsus ds leku gh gksxkA 'kklu iV~Vs dk 'krks± esa Qsj cny dj ldsxk ;k dksbZ 'krZ ;k 'krsZ Mky ldsxkA 4- mi;qZDr uacj 1] 2] 3 es ls fdlh Hkh 'krZ ds ikyu u djus ij ;k mYya?ku djus ij bl tehu dk iV~Vk dsUly fd;k tk ldsxk vkSj tehu ds gd ljdkj esa ys fy;s tk,xsaA rFkk iês dks dsUly djus ls ;fn iV~Vsnkj dks fdlh Hkh :i esa dksbZ gkfu gqbZ rks mldh ftEesnkj ljdkj u gksxh vkSj u bl laca/k esa iV~Vsnkj ljdkj ls dksbZ eqvkotk gh ek¡x ldsxkA 15-4-1953 gLrk{kj % rglhynkj ijxuk jryke e/; Hkkjr 3. The then Tahsildar by order dated 22.8.2006 has mutated the name of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company as Bhumiswami over the land in question. Patta was granted by virtue of order dated 12.4.1951 passed by the Revenue Secretary Maal Department, Madhya Bharat, Government Gwalior and by order dated 18.4.1951 and 2.2.1951 passed by the Secretary and Subahsahab, District Ratlam. This patta was granted as per section 101(1) of the Madhya Bharat Bhu Agam Tatha Krishak-Ka-Adhikar Vidhan Kramank 66 Samvat 2007. A bare perusal of the patta goes to show that this patta was for other than agriculture purpose and was a special patta, which was governed by specific conditions as incorporated in the patta. As per condition No.3 there was an explicit bar of transfer to any person by the Pattedar without obtaining due sanction from the State Government. The condition No.4 further stipulated that if there was a violation of any of the conditions No.1, 2 and 3, then the Patta (lease) shall be cancelled and the tile of the land shall vest in the State Government. 4. On 22.3.1993, a general power of attorney was executed by the so called patta holder Shri Jamshed s/o Rustamji, Contractor in favour of Tehmpton Anklesaria only to manage, control and look after the aforesaid land. Vide Annexure P-3, a sale-deed was executed by Tehmpton Anklesaria as attorney holder in favour of his wife Smt. Nina, his son Mustad, his daughter-in-law – Smt. Ruksana and his son Sohrab, for a consideration of Rs.35,00,000/- on 29.1.1994. On 12.2.2005 vide Annexure P-5, a sale-deed was executed by party No.1, i.e., Jamshed and Behram Rustamji and party No.2, i.e., sons, daughter and daughter-in-law of Tehmpton Anklesaria in favour of M/s. Hanumanji Trading Company over the land in question for a consideration of Rs.84,00,000/-. Para 7 of the said sale deed reads as under :- “7. That the total consideration of this property is agreed at Rs.84,00,000/- (Rs.Eighty four lacs only) out of which the party No.2 who are the present owner and holder of the subject property on account of registered sale-deed in their favour by the party No.1 have received the sum of Rs.81,00,000/- (Rs. That the total consideration of this property is agreed at Rs.84,00,000/- (Rs.Eighty four lacs only) out of which the party No.2 who are the present owner and holder of the subject property on account of registered sale-deed in their favour by the party No.1 have received the sum of Rs.81,00,000/- (Rs. Eighty one lacs only) towards the sale consideration of this indenture and the party No.1 who are joining in execution of this indenture has also received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.Three lacs only) as a part of sale consideration of the subject property. Thus total consideration of Rs.84,00,000/- (Rs. Eighty four lacs only) have been received by the parties No.1 and 2 in the aforementioned manner which the parties No.1 and 2 admit herein and now no consideration remains to be paid by the party No.3 to the parties No.1 and 2. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deed M/s. Hanuman Trading Company became owner of the Nazul land of the Government, which was initially granted on special patta to M/s. Jahagir Oil Mill. In revenue record, the name of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company was recorded. After sale-deed the name of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company was mutated and thereafter by order dated 5.5.2007, the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning diverted the use of land and Municipal Corporation, Ratlam also granted permission in favour of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company. 6. From the perusal of the Khasra entries also goes to show that the land belongs to the State Government and is a Padat land and is held by Firm Doongaji and Contractor Oil Mill, Ratlam and Company under the special Patta. The said company was Govt. lessee on the strength of the special patta granted by the State Government for establishment and for running of the Oil Mill. Patta was give to the patta-holder under the provisions of section 101 of the Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act, 1950. The terms of the lease are sacrosanct and are to be followed in toto and any violation of the terms of the lease was in itself sufficient to cancel the patta of Pattaholder. The Tahsildar found that the land was given away to another person by patta holder for establishment of a godown, therefore, a notice dated 16.4.1991 was issued for initiation of proceedings for cancellation of patta. The Tahsildar found that the land was given away to another person by patta holder for establishment of a godown, therefore, a notice dated 16.4.1991 was issued for initiation of proceedings for cancellation of patta. The legal representative of the party were taken on record on 21.10.1991 and then a show cause notice was issued. The objection was preferred. The Collector by order dated 2.6.1992, recalled the earlier notice dated 16.4.1991 and directed the Tehsildar to submit a detailed report by 23.6.1992. The Tehsildar on 30.6.1994 submitted its detailed report and it was stated that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the patta. On 2.5.1998 again report was submitted by the Tahsildar wherein it was found that there was violation of the patta conditions, as a result of which the Collector again issued show cause notice dated 3.6.1998. An objection preferred was rejected by order dated 3.11.1998 passed in Case No.14/Aa-39/97-98. The legal representatives of the M/s. Doongaji and Company preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain wherein the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, Division, Ujjain by his order dated 8.12.1998 held that the proceedings initiated by the Collector for cancellation of patta were barred by res judicata, thus ordered for setting aside of the notice and the entire proceedings. The Additional Commissioner further held that the patta holder infact had acquired the Bhumiswami rights and further ordered for mutation of his name in the revenue record as Bhumiswami over the aforesaid land. Thereafter, the State Government sought review by seeking permission from the board of revenue. 7. In suo moto, Revision Case No.2/99-2000 by order dated 11.3.2000, the order dated 8.12.1998 of the Additional Commissioner was set aside by holding that the provisions of M.P. Bhu Rajasva Sanhita Sanshodhan Adhiniyam dated 17th June, 1992 was only with respect to the provision of holdings for the agriculture purpose whereas in this case the patta held by the patta holder was explicitly for other than agriculture purpose, i.e., for establishment of oil Mill, therefore, the aforesaid provisions of the amended Adhiniyam, 1992 were not applicable and mutation of respondent as Bhumiswami on the land bearing survey No.86 was beyond his jurisdiction. 8. After order dated 11.3.2000 M/s. Doongaji and Company Ratlam by registered sale deed sold the entire land in question in favour of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company through its partner Badrilal Agrawal. 8. After order dated 11.3.2000 M/s. Doongaji and Company Ratlam by registered sale deed sold the entire land in question in favour of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company through its partner Badrilal Agrawal. M/s. Hanuman Trading Company preferred application under sections 109 and 110 of MPLRC for mutation of their names as Bhumiswami before Tahsildar. The Tahsildar by order dated 22.8.2006 mutated the land of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company as Bhumiswami over the land in question, i.e., Survey No.86. The Board of Revenue in Revision Case No.1082-4/2002 vide order dated 3.9.2004, set aside the order dated 11.3.2002 and affirmed the order dated 8.12.1998. Against the aforesaid order the State Government further preferred the review petition before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed as being inadmissible by order dated 29.9.2004. 9. Thereafter, one Goverdhan Lohiya, filed a complaint to the Collector who constituted a committee to inquire into the matter and the said committee thereafter submitted its report on 8.1.2010. The under Secretary of the Government of M.P., Revenue Department by letter dated 21.4.2011 on receipt of the detailed report into the matter, directed the Commissioner Ujjain, Division, Ujjain, to initiate further action with respect to the aforesaid letter dated 21.4.2011. The under Secretary of the Government of M.P., Revenue Department by letter dated 21.4.2011 on receipt of the detailed report into the matter, directed the Commissioner Ujjain, Division, Ujjain, to initiate further action with respect to the aforesaid letter dated 21.4.2011. The report of the enquiry committee dated 8.1.2010 is relevant which reads as under :- tk¡p lfefr dk vfHker % jktLo vfHkys[k ,oa U;k;ky;hu izdj.kksa ds ifjis{; esa tk¡p lfefr dk ;g vfHker gS fd %& ¼1½ e-iz- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 dh /kkjk 158 ds varxZr d`f"k ds vUrxZr èkkfjr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa gh Hkwfe Lokeh ds vf/kdkj iznÙk gq, gS lafgrk dh /kkjk 158¼1½¼[k½ esa ;g Li"V gS fd izR;sd O;fDr ml Hkwfe ds laca/k esa tks fd e/; Hkkjr Hkw&vkxe ,oa d`"kdkf/kdkj fo/kku lacar 2007 Øekad 66 lu 1950 esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr iDdk d`"kd ds :i esa ;k ekQhnkj] bukenkj ;k NwV [kkrsnkj ds :i esa mlds }kjk e/;Hkkjr {ks= esa /kkfjr gksA /kkjk 158 ds [akM ¼[k½ esa mYysf[kr iDdk d`"kd dh ifjHkk"kk e/; Hkkjr Hkw&vkxe rFkk d`"kdkf/kdkj fo/kku laor~ 2007 ¼Ø-66 lu 1950½ dh èkkjk 54 ¼4½ ds [kaM ¼7½ esa nh xbZ gS bl ifjHkk"kk ds vuqlkj iDdk d`"kd ls rkRi;Z ml d`"kd ls gS tks ;k iwoZorhZ fgrkf/kdkjh vius iV~Vs ds lacaèk esa bl fo/kku ds izHkko'khy gksus ds le; jktfu;ekuqlj ^^js;r iV~Vsnkj** ekewyh ekS:lh xsj ekS:lh rFkk iq[rk ekS:lh ds :i esa fy[kk gqvk gS ;k ,slk fy[kk gqvk Fkk ;k rks Hkfo"; esa l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk bl :i es fofèk lEer ekU; fy;k tk,A vfHkys[k ijh{k.k lfefr }kjk izLrqr la;qDr izfrosnu esa ;g Li"V fd;k gS fd jftLVj [kkrs tekcanh o"kZ 56&57 esa theu ua-1 yxk;r 6 esa i`Fkd&i`Fkd Hkwfe /kkj.k vf/kdkj esa LoRo oxhZd`r fd;k x;k gS ftlds vuqlkj theu ua-6 d`f"k ls i`Fkd vk'k;ksa ds fy;s iV~Vsnkj }kjk /kkfjr Hkwfe gSA ftlesa fuEu [kkrs tkrs gSa %& ¼v½ 'kkldh; foHkkx }kjk /kkfjr [kkrk Øekad 321 ¼,d [kkrk½ ¼c½ E;qfuflikyVh ,ao lkoZtfud iV~Vsnkj }kjk /kkfjr [kkrk Øekad 322&324 ,oa ¼l½ turk }kjk /kkfjr Hkwfe [kkrk Øekad 325 ls 331 rd mijksDr theu 6 dh leh{kk djus ij Li"V gS fd [kkrk Øekad 328 Mwxk th ,UM dUVªkUVj jryke vkbZy fey lkfdu nsg Hkw&vkxe 414AAA dh izfof"V theu ua-6 dh d`f"k ls i`Fkd vk'k;ksa ds fy;s iV~Vsnkj /kkfjr Hkwfe esa ¼l½ turk }kjk /kkfjr gksdj 'kkldh; iV~Vsnkj ds /kkj.kkf/kdkj esa izfo"V gSA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd Hkwfe Lokeh LoRo ds o"kZ 1961&62 dh [krksuh esa ntZ izfof"V vuqlkj [kkrk Øekad 100@132 Mwxkth ,UM dUVªkUVj daiuh jryke Hkwfe Lokeh d`f"k vk'k; [kljk uacj 90 ,ao 91 dqy fdrk 2 jdck 26 AAA3 Hkw&vkxe 64-36 iSls HkwfeLokeh LoRokf/kdkj esa ntZ gSA ,oa [kkrk Øekad 101@363 esa Øekad 100 ds vuqlkj d`f"k fHkUu vk'k; vkbZy fey- 'kkldh; iVVkx`ghrk /kkfjr [kljk uEcj 86 izfof"V gSA vr% fely cUnkscLr ¼vf/kdkj vfHkys[k½ o"kZ 56&57 ,d izekf.kr vfHkys[k gS blesa [kkrsnkj tekcanh [kkrk Øekad 328 ,ao [kljk Øekad 86 izfof"V dk voyksdu djus ls ;g rF;kRed izekf.kr gS fd fely esa MwXkk th ,UM dUVªkUVj daiuh jryke vkbZy fey lkfdu nsg [kljk uEcj 86 Hkw&vkxe 414AAA #i;s d`f"k fHkUu vk'k; 'kkldh; iVVkx`ghrk dh Hkwfe ntZ gSA yxku nj esa d`f"k fHkUu vk'k; Hkw&vkxe 414AAA #i;s gksdj ;g Hkwfe vkby fey d`f"k fHkUu vk'k; iVVsnkj LoRo dh gSA ¼2½ vfHkys[k voyksdu ls Hkw&jktLo lafgrk dh /kkjk 158 ds vUrxZr dgh Hkh Hkwfe Lokeh vf/kdkj iznk; laca/kh vkns'k dh izfof"V ugh ikbZ xbZ gSA èkkjd d`f"k fHkUu vk'k; iVVsnkj gSA vr% iz'uk/khu Hkwfe 'kkldh; iVVkx`fgrk dh gSA ¼3½ o"kZ 2004&05 rd mDr Hkwfe losZ dzekad 86 kkldh; iVVkx`ghrk ntZ FkhA rglhynkj jryke 'kgj }kjk izdj.k Øekad 1 v&6v@04&05 vkns'k fnukad 22-11-04 ls jktLo eaMy ds vkns'k fnukad 3-9-2004 ds vk/kkj ij 'kkldh; iVVsnkj d`f"k fHkUUk vk'k; ds LFkku ij Hkwfe Lokeh ds :i esa ntZ dh xbZ gSA rRi'pkr~ Hkwfe esllZ guqeku VªsfMax daiuh ds uke ij ukekarj.k gqbZ gSA ¼4½ ekSds ij vkbZy fey orZeku esa ugha gSA rFkk Hkwfe vkoklh; iz;kstu gsrq O;iofrZr djk yh xbZ gSA ;g fØ;kdyki iVVs dh 'krZ Øekad 2 o 3 dk Li"V mYya?ku gSA vr% 'krZ Øekad 4 vuqlkj iVVk fujLrh ;ksX; gSA pwfda mijksDr rF;ksa ij iwoZ U;k;ky; esa fopkj.k gksuk ugh ik;k tkrk rFkk tks dk;Zokgh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk dh xbZ gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; jktLo eaMy ls ikfjr vkns'k ds ikyu esa dh xbZ gSA vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; jktLo e.My Xokfy;j ds izdj.k Øekad fjO;q 1246&nks @04 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 29-9-2004 ds fo#) l{ke U;k;ky; esa vihy@;kfpdk izLrqr fd;s tkus gsrq jktLo foHkkx ,oa fof/k foHkkx ds ijke'kZ vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkuk izLrkfor gSA layXu & vuqyaXud & 22 th-ih- dqMs                               ds- vkj- tSu utwy vf/kdkjh                         izHkkjh vij dyDVj ,oa jryke                            eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ftyk iapk;r jryke fgUnw flag pq.Mkor                             vfuy nqcs fMIVh dysDVj jryke                     rglhynkj utwy jryke 10. On receipt of report from the committee the Government of M.P. Revenue Department vide Annexure R-2 dated 21.4.2011 directed the Commissioner Ujjain, Division, Ujjain to take appropriate steps in the matter. The Law Department of Government of M.P. on 9.9.2011 gave an opinion not to take further action in the matter on the ground of delay of seven years. Relevant para of the opinion reads as under :- fo"k; % jryke 'kgj fLFkr 'kkldh; Hkwfe;ksa ds futh gkFkksa esa tkus dh tk¡p&losZ Ø-86 tgkaxhj vkbZy feyA iwoZ i`"B ls %& vr% foyac dks dksbZ vkSfpR; vk/kkj izrhr ugh gksrk gSA bl izdj.k esa nks"kh deZpkjh ds fo#) dk;Zokgh visf{kr gSA vr% vkyksP; vkns'k ds fo#) dksbZ fjV ;kfpdk 7 o"kZ dh vof/k ds ckn izLokfor fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugh gksrk gSA fof/k foHkkx ds bl er ds foijhr iz'kkldh; foHkkx fjV ;kfpdk vFkok vihy ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djuk pkgrk gS rks Lo;a ds tksf[ke ij fnu izfrfnu ds foyac dks Li"V djrs gq,] nks"kh deZpkjh ds 'kiFk i= ds lkFk foyac dks {kek djus ds vkosnu ds lkFk iqu% izLrko bl foHkkx dks Hkstk tk,] rc vkxs dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk laHko gSA ¼lfpo] fof/k }kjk vuqeksfnr½ ¼lq'khy ijrs½ voj lfpo] fof/k jktLo foHkkx 11. From the aforesaid, narration of fact, it is not in dispute that a special patta was granted by order dated 5.4.1953 for other than agriculture purpose. The patta was conditionally and was explicitly granted for establishment of oil mill and not for agriculture purpose and was granted under the provision of section 101(1) of the Act of Madhya Bharat Tenancy Act, 1950 and the same was governed by the terms and conditions of the patta. The Board of Revenue and learned Commissioner failed to see that patta was granted for other than agriculture purpose and the land which was held in fact a Padat land, it was not agriculture Patta. The respondent was not a agriculture lessee and, therefore, after coming into force of the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, he did not acquire the status of Bhoomiswami, but as per the provisions of section 181(2) of MPLR Code, he will remain a Government lessee. The Board of Revenue proceeded on wrong presumption that the respondent (s) was a Government lessee of a agriculture land and acted without jurisdiction in declaring the respondents as Bhumiswami and affirming the order dated 8.12.1998. The Board of Revenue proceeded on wrong presumption that the respondent (s) was a Government lessee of a agriculture land and acted without jurisdiction in declaring the respondents as Bhumiswami and affirming the order dated 8.12.1998. It is also well settled that as per sections 115 and 116 of the MPLR Code the revenue authorities are empowered to correct the entry in the revenue record. They cannot decide the title nor any power has been confirmed on the Tahsildar to declare the patta holder as Bhumiswami. The so called transfer made in favour of wife, sons and daughter-in-law of Tehmpton Anklesaria and further alienation by them in favour of Hanuman Trading Company is void ab initio because the transfer effected by them is a transfer from the person having no title whatsoever such a transfer having no valid title is void ab initio, thus, it does not create any title in favour of the Hanuman Trading Company. 12. The learned revenue authority failed to consider that the respondent M/s. Doongaji and Company did not produce any document that any decree in their favour was ever passed by the civil Court declaring their title over the land in question. Thus, the declaration of Bhumiswami rights by the revenue authority in favour of M/s. Doongaji and Company is bad in law. 13. As per reply filed by respondents No.1 to 5/State the Patta was conditional to the effect that if the patta-holder uses the land in contravention to the terms and conditions of the Patta then same shall be cancelled. It is also stated that the revenue authority including the Additional Commissioner, sitting in revision and Board of Revenue exceeded their jurisdiction while passing the order in favour of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company. The officials of the State were responsible for dereliction in duties, as they did not enquire into the matter when the matter came within their jurisdiction and further did not inform the higher officials regarding the gravity of the matter and also did not inform the higher officials regarding the proceedings of the mutation of Government land in favour of the private persons. Mutation proceedings initiated before the revenue authority were never informed by the revenue authority to the Competent Authority i.e. Collector as well as the State Government, however mutation was carried out on their own which was contrary to law and supported the action of the petitioner. Mutation proceedings initiated before the revenue authority were never informed by the revenue authority to the Competent Authority i.e. Collector as well as the State Government, however mutation was carried out on their own which was contrary to law and supported the action of the petitioner. 14. Private respondents have filed their separate return/reply and defended the orders passed by the revenue authority and raised the preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It is also stated that the PIL is extremely belated after a long lapse of about 8 years of order passed by the Board of Revenue on 3.9.2004. The title of the respondents No.6, 7 and 8 has been recognized by the Board of Revenue and review petition against the order was dismissed on 29.9.2004. The order of the revenue authority has attained finality. The respondent No.14 sought permission to divert this land for residential purposes and the same was granted by the SDO. On 10.9.2007. After diversion the map of the colony was sanctioned from Town and Country Planning Department. Thereafter, the respondent No.14 has started development work by erecting a boundary wall and levelling the land and has spent huge amount and the development work is in progress. It is alleged that the Patta dated 15.4.1953 was granted by the Madhya Bharat Government on the authority of Shrimant Raipramukh of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat). The land originally belonged to “Hurmutji s/o Ruttonjee Parsi” and was recorded in his name in the Khasra of Mouja Ratlam in the year 1912-13 as Pattedar Mamauli. Thereafter, the aforesaid land was duly recorded in the name of M/s. Behramjit Doongaji and Co. as successors of Hurmutji Ratanjee and this entry continued upto the 1953. As per provisions of section 101 of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, the land was granted on lease for other than agricultural purposes. The case of the respondent No.14 that the Government did not allotted any government land to M/s. Doongaji nor did M/s. Behramgi Doongaji & and Co. and thus, provisions of section 101 of Madhya Bharat Act would not be applicable and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 15. The stand of the private respondents is contrary to the stand taken by the State (respondents No.1 to 5). 16. and thus, provisions of section 101 of Madhya Bharat Act would not be applicable and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 15. The stand of the private respondents is contrary to the stand taken by the State (respondents No.1 to 5). 16. It was further contended by the private respondents that the land in question was not the Government land which was owned by the then “Hurmutji s/o Ruttonjee Parsi” who got it from the then Zamindar before the abolition of zamindari, thereafter they were holding the land as “Pucca Tenant” and after coming into force of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1959 all such Pucca Tenants became the Bhumiswami of the land and, therefore, they are the title holders of the land. As such, they were free to use the land in the way they wanted being owners and the Government has no concern so far as the land in question is concerned, therefore, no public interest is involved. The Private respondents are Bhumiswami and name of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company have been rightly mutated in the revenue record. 17. We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties at length on the pleadings and perused the documents filed by the parties on record. 18. From the averments mentioned in the petition it is clear that the land was the Government land which was allotted for other than the agricultural purposes by the then Gwalior State and this contention of the private respondents cannot be accepted that they were “Pucca Tenant” within the meaning of provisions of section 54(7) of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act Samvat, 2007 and thereafter they have acquired Bhumiswami rights therein. In the Pattas which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs it has been mentioned that lessee will pay land revenue to the Government which clearly prove the fact that the Patta was granted by the Government. 19. We have gone through the orders passed by the Revenue Officers including the order of Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue. The Senior Officers have not recorded the proper findings nor considered the terms and conditions of the Patta, 2007 Act and section 101(1) of the Madhya Bharat Bhu Agam Tatha Krishak-Ka-Adhikar Vidhan Kramank 66 Samvat 2007. It has not been disputed by the State Government in its return and they have prayed for enquiry against them. The Senior Officers have not recorded the proper findings nor considered the terms and conditions of the Patta, 2007 Act and section 101(1) of the Madhya Bharat Bhu Agam Tatha Krishak-Ka-Adhikar Vidhan Kramank 66 Samvat 2007. It has not been disputed by the State Government in its return and they have prayed for enquiry against them. The State in their return very categorically stated that the Patta was granted for the other than agricultural purposes by the Erstwhile State, before coming into the force of M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, therefore, during the course of transfer of land from Gwalior State to State of Madhya Pradesh neither such a land can be transferred in any manner nor it can be sold or converted into the commercial or residential purposes. It is true that in a public interest litigation the sale deeds cannot be set aside and for that the party has to file a civil suit for cancellation of sale deeds as has been explained in the petition that it is the Government land and Government has granted Pattas and that Pattas has been granted for other than agricultural purposes the same cannot be transferred to the private party for residential purposes. In PIL, we have certainly have the power to examine this question when Revenue authorities contrary to settled law permitted the transfer of land and mutation in the name of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company. 20. The State of M.P. also filed separate Writ Petition No.10428/2011, challenging the transfer of title in favour of M/s. Hanuman Trading Company on the ground that as per terms and conditions of Patta the same was not transferable and was to be used properly for the purpose for which it was granted. The patta was conditional and if there was contravention of the terms and conditions then the same shall be revoked/cancelled and the entire land shall vest in the State of Government. 21. As per provisions of section 101(1) of the Madhya Bharat Bhu Agam Tatha Krishak-Ka-Adhikar Vidhan Kramank 66 Samvat 2007 the land was to be governed as per terms and conditions of the Patta in violation of the terms and conditions of the Patta which was sufficient to initiate proceedings for revocation of the Patta. 22. 21. As per provisions of section 101(1) of the Madhya Bharat Bhu Agam Tatha Krishak-Ka-Adhikar Vidhan Kramank 66 Samvat 2007 the land was to be governed as per terms and conditions of the Patta in violation of the terms and conditions of the Patta which was sufficient to initiate proceedings for revocation of the Patta. 22. For these reasons, we quash the order dated 3rd September, 2004 passed in Case No.1082-4/2002, order dated 3rd December, 1998 passed in Case No.14/Aa-39/97-98 and order dated 29.9.2004 passed in Case No.R1082-IV/2002 and we grant permission to the Municipal Corporation, Committee Constituted by Collector, Ratlam and direct the respondents No.1 to 5 to implement the joint report submitted by Collector Ratlam in its letter and spirit. The private respondents are restrained from disposing/alienating of the plot demarcated at the land in question bearing Survey No.86 admeasuring 2.240 hectre till the joint report of the Committee constituted by the Collector, Ratlam is in existence. No costs. Copy of this order be retained in Writ Petition No.10428/2011.