Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 113 (MP)

Jaya Rathi v. Shri Summa

2018-01-30

HEMANT GUPTA, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2018
ORDER Gupta, C.J. -- 1. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order passed by learned Single Bench on 22.3.2017 whereby the challenge to the orders dated 29.11.2001 and 30.11.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bareli, District Raisen remained unsuccessful. 2. The appellants are said to be purchaser of leasehold rights from a Bhoomiswami who have been allotted land by the State Government under Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short “the Code”). The appellants have purchased such lease hold rights vide sale deeds executed on different dates in the year 1991-1992. On a complaint made, the matter was referred to the Collector for inquiry. The Collector sent it to the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is the Sub-Divisional Officer who found that such sale is in contravention of provisions contained in section 165 (7-b) of the Code and consequently, the transactions of sale were found to be void ab initio. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants raised an argument that even if the appellants have not sought permission from the Collector as is required in terms of sub-clause (7-b) of section 165 of the Code, still, the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to declare the document of title as void. It is contended that such right has been conferred only on the civil Court. 4. The relevant provision of the Code reads as under : “165. Rights of transfer. - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section and the provision of section 168 a Bhumiswami may transfer any interest in his land. *** *** *** (7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), [a person who holds land from the State Government or a person who holds land in Bhoomiswami 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 Bhoomiswami 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.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present appeal. 6. The land was granted to the landless persons on lease by the State Government. The transfer of land leased to a landless person could be affected only after getting approval from the Collector. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the present appeal. 6. The land was granted to the landless persons on lease by the State Government. The transfer of land leased to a landless person could be affected only after getting approval from the Collector. Since admittedly the approval from the Collector was not sought, such transaction has been rightly found to be void as such transaction is in contravention of statutory provisions. 7. Section 57 of the Code confers ownership in all lands on the State whereas, sub-section (2) contemplates that if a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under sub-section (1), such dispute shall be decided by the State Government or by the Collector. Still further, under section 257 of the Code, the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred in respect of any decision regarding any right under subsection (1) of section 57 between the State Government and any person. The relevant clauses read as under : “57. State ownership in all lands. - (1) All lands belong to the State Government and it is hereby declared that all such lands, including standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not, and all rights in the sub-soil of any land are the property of the State Government : Provided that nothing in this section shall, save as otherwise provided in this Code, be deemed to affect any rights of any persons subsisting at the coming into force of this Code in any such property. (2) Where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under sub-section (1) such dispute shall be decided by the State Government/Collector. *** *** *** 257. (2) Where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under sub-section (1) such dispute shall be decided by the State Government/Collector. *** *** *** 257. Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities.- Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters : (a) any decision regarding any right under sub-section (1) of section 57 between the State Government and any person. *** *** ***” 8. Therefore, the State having granted lease of land to landless persons, had a right over the land in question as owner and the appellants having obtained sale deeds from the landless persons, the matter could be decided only by the State Government or by the Collector in terms of section 57 read with section 257 of the Code. The sale could not be declared void by the civil Court as the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred in terms of section 257 read with section 57 of the Code. In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.