Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 707 (MP)

Ranjeet Singh v. State of M. P.

2016-08-17

SANJAY YADAV

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard on admission. Section 165(6-b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 envisages : “165. Rights of transfer. .. (6-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 (No.36 of 1963), the Collector may on his own motion at any time or on an application made in this behalf within three years of such transaction in such form as may be prescribed, make an enquiry as he may deem fit, and may, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the persons affected by the transfer, pass an order ratifying the transfer or refusing to ratify the transfer” Similarly, section 165(7-b) provides for “(7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), a person who holds land from the State Government or a person who holds land in Bhumiswami rights under sub-section (3) of section 158 or whom right to occupy land is granted by the State Government or the Collector as a Government lessee and who subsequently becomes Bhumiswami of such land, shall not transfer such land without the permission of a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of a Collector, given for reasons to be recorded in writing.” 2. Invoking said provisions, Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 14.10.2010 passed in Case No.3/ v -23/2010-11 referred the matter to Collector, Tikamgarh for cancellation of sale of land bearing Khasra No.60/2 area 0.098 Hectare by respondent No.7 to the petitioner, as the land was allotted on patta to respondent No.7, a member belonging to aboriginal tribe, who transferred in favour of the petitioner. 3. Vide order dated 18.7.2011, the Collector, after affording an opportunity of hearing and on a finding that the transaction was in violation of provisions contained under section 165(7-b), cancelled the patta and directed Tahsildar to initiate action for declaration of registered sale deed as null and void. 3. Vide order dated 18.7.2011, the Collector, after affording an opportunity of hearing and on a finding that the transaction was in violation of provisions contained under section 165(7-b), cancelled the patta and directed Tahsildar to initiate action for declaration of registered sale deed as null and void. The Collector held :- ^^izdj.k esa layXu vfHkys[k dk vuq'khyu fd;k x;kA rglhynkj us vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh dks fnukad 12-10-2010 dks Hksts x;s izfrosnu esa mYys[k fd;k gSs fd iz'uk/khu Hkwfe vukosnd jkeLo#i ru; nhus vfgjokj dks 'kklu }kjk iês ij nh xbZ Fkh] ftls oxSj l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds foØ; ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] ijUrq vukosnd Øekad 2 jathr flag ru; egkjkt flag dks ;g Hkwfe oxSj l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds foØ; dj vukosndx.k }kjk e-iz- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk 1959 dh /kkjk 165¼7½ dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA rglhynkj ,oa vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh us iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dks 'kkldh; ?kksf"kr djus gsrq izfrosnu bl U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k gSA izdj.k esa ik, x, rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V gqvk gS fd xzke pdjiqj dh Hkwfe [kljk Øekad 60@2 jdok 0-098 gS- Hkwfe vukosnd jkeLo#i ru; nhus vfgjokj dks 'kklu }kjk iês ij vkoafVr dh xbZ Fkh] ftls l{ke vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr ds oxSj foØ; ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA iêsnkj }kjk e-iz- Hkw&jktLo lafgrk 1959 dh /kkjk 165¼7½¼[k½ dk mYya?ku fd;s tkus ds dkj.k vukosnd jkeLo#i vfgjokj dks Hkwfe [kljk Øekad 60@2 jdok 0-098 gS- dk fn;k x;k iêk fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa foØ; ds vk/kkj ij jathr flag ru; egkjkt flag Bkdqj ds uke fd;k x;k ukekarj.k fujLr djrs gq, iz'uk/khu Hkwfe dks 'kkldh; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA iz'uk/khu Hkwfe iathd`r foØ; i= }kjk gLrkarfjr dh xbZ gSA vr% rglhynkj dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og iathd`r foØ; i= fujLr djkus ds lacaèk esa flfoy U;k;ky; esa dk;Zokgh djsa rFkk jktLo vfHkys[k esa ;g vkns'k vey djkdj ikyu izfrosnu lkr fnol esa bl U;k;ky; dks HkstsaA^^ 4. The Board of Revenue in a revision preferred by the transferee came to be dismissed by order dated 9.8.2012. The order passed by Collector was affirmed. A review of the said order sought for by petitioner came to be dismissed on 19.5.2015. 5. Though these orders are challenged on many grounds including that the petitioner wrongly availed the remedy of appeal. The order passed by Collector was affirmed. A review of the said order sought for by petitioner came to be dismissed on 19.5.2015. 5. Though these orders are challenged on many grounds including that the petitioner wrongly availed the remedy of appeal. However, in view of the provisions contained under section 165(7-b) read with section 165(6-b) of 1959 Code and that the petitioner was given the opportunity of hearing and that the transaction being in violation of statutory stipulation contained in 1959 Code and that the petitioner himself choose the forum for redressal of his grievance, this Court does not perceive any illegality in the impugned order, as would warrant any indulgence. 6. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.