Kamal Vishwakarma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Vishal Mishra, J

Since the controversy involved in both the petitions are identical, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the fact of WP No.44355/2025 are taken into consideration.

Challenge is made to the order dated 19-3-2024 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby an application submitted by the petitioner under Sections 109 and 110 of the MPLRC, 1959, for mutation has been rejected.

The said order has been affirmed in the appeal under Section 44 of the MPLRC, 1959 vide order dated 23.7.2025 by the respondent no. 2 and further by the respondent no.1 vide order dated 28.10.2025. Hence, this petition.

It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed an application under Sections 109 and 110 of the MPLRC, 1959 for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 19-3-2024 had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, he filed first appeal under section 44 (1) of the MPLRC, 1959 before the respondent no. 2. The order passed by the Naib Tehsildar was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 23.7.2025. Again which, second appeal was filed under Section 44 (2) of MPLRC, 1959, before the respondent no. 1. The said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2025 and ordered to obtain possession of the lad in question from the petitioner within 15 days.

It is argued by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 received the land bearing Khasra No. 760/2 area 1.59 hectare and Khasra No. 737/5 area 0.41 hectare, total land 2.00 hectare situated at Mauja Chaturbhata, P. H. No. - 126, R.N.M. - Surkhi, Vikaskhand, Tehsil and District Sagar from State Government by virtue of letter dated 09.08.1983 letter number 1590-553-83-Seven, Branch 2, of Madhya Pradesh Government, Revenue Department (Branch 2), Bhopal as the petitioner was an Ex-army man, on the basis of which, name of the respondent no. 4 was mutated in the revenue records. Respondent no. 4 executed a registered sale deed on 3-11-2022 in favour of the petitioner and alienated the land in question and delivered the possession of the land to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 109 and 110 of MPLRC for mutation of his name in the revenue records on the basis of the registered sale deed.

It is submitted that the Tehsildar could not have rejected the application for mutation as the same was based upon the registered sale deed. The reason assigned for rejection is that there was no prior permission taken from the Collector for selling the land in question by the respondent no. 4. It is argued that the respondent no. 4, after 10 years of grant of Patta in his favour, became the Bhumiswami of the land in question. Therefore, he was having a right to sell the property. The order passed by the Tehsildar was affirmed up to the superior authorities. H has relied upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. &

Another v. Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Mydt., Gwalior, 2024 (1) RN 363 and has argued that all the aspects were duly considered by the Division Bench of the Court and the writ appeal filed by the State Government was dismissed. The petitioner is identically situated and is a bona fide purchaser of the land in question. Therefore, his name should have been mutated in the revenue records in pursuance to the registered sale dee. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned orders and the application filed under Section 109 and 110 of the MPLRC be allowed and a direction be issued to the authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue record.

Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and has submitted that the land was granted on Patta to the Respondent No. 4 under the category of Ex. Army Man. The permission for selling of the land was required to be taken in terms of Section 165 (7-b) of the MPLR, 1959. The said permission was not taken by the Respondent No. 4 prior to selling the land in favour of the petitioner. The case law which has been relied upon by the petitioner is virtually in different facts and circumstances, therefore, will be of no help to the petitioner. It is argued that earlier judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Savina Park Resorts and Tours Pvt. Ltd. v. State of MP and Ors, reported in 2012 RN 97 (2012 92) MPLJ 363, has covered the legal issues and no selling of the property can be done without taking permission under Section 165 (7-b) of the MPLRC, 1959. The authorities have rightly considered the aforesaid aspect of the matte and rejected the application which was affirmed up to the second appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

On perusal of the records, it is seen that the sole question which came up for consideration before this Court is whether the permission as required under Section 165 (7-b) of the MPLRC, 1959 is required to be taken prior to selling the land granted on Patta, in the event, when the Bhoomiswami rights are confirmed to the Respondent No. 4.

Section 165 (7-b) of the MPLRC is required to be seen, for reference is reproduced herein below :-

165 (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 bhumiswami rights under sub-section (3) of Section 158] [Inserted by M.P. Act No. 15 of 1980.] 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.

From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the permission has to be sought from the Competent Authority i.e. the Corrector, for selling a land, even after conferral of the Bhoomiswami rights in pursuance to the aforesaid amendment.

It is an admitted position that in pursuance to the order dated 23.8.2002, the land was granted on Patta to the Respondent No. 4 in the capacity of ex-Army man. He was conferred with the Bhoomiswami rights and thereafter he has sold the property to the petitioner in the year 2022. Therefore, the amendment inserted in the year 1980, will be applicable in the case of the petitioner.

It is a specific case of the petitioner that after conferral of the Bhoomiswami rights, there was no requirement for taking any permission from the Corrector prior to selling the land in question. The judgment, which is relied upon by the petitioner, is virtually on different facts as the Patta was granted prior to year 1980 and the Bhoomiswami rights were conferred prior to 1980 i.e. prior to amendment. Therefore the same judgment will be of no help to the Petitioner.

The said aspect was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Adhunik Grih Nirman (supra), wherein, in paragraphs 33 and 34 it is observed as under :-

"33. So far as contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant that as per the provisions contained under Section 165 (7- b) prior 23 to transfer of a land which is held by a person from a State Government or a person holding land in Bhumiswami rights under sub -Section 3 of Section 158 of Code of whom the right to occupy the 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 the Revenue Officer not below the rank of Collector and as the land in question has been transferred by the predecessor in title of the respondent/petitioner without permission of the Collector, therefore, the said sale are per se illegal and bad is concerned, the provisions of Section 165 (7 -b) are required to be analyzed for its proper appreciation. Section 165 (7-b) of the Code for reference is reproduced herein below:

165 [(7-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), 4[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 24 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.]

Section 165 (7-b) start with a non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section 1 of Section 165 it lays down that subject to other provisions of Sub-Section 3 of Section 158 and provisions of Section 168, a Bhumiswami may transfer interest in his land, and it does not take away the substantial right of the Bhumiswami to enjoy the land, but it merely imposes a restriction on sale of such land except with the permission of Collector for certain category of persons who are: who holds land from the State Government or holds land in Bhumiswami rights under sub-Section 3 of Section 158 or whom right to occupy the Government land is granted by the State Government or the Collector as a Government lessee and such persons who had subsequently acquired the Bhumiswami rights of such land. So far as the categories of persons who hold land from the State Government or a person who holds land in Bhumiswami

25 rights under sub-section 3 of Section 158 are concerned, the said words were inserted in sub-Section (7 -b) of Section 165 w.e.f 28.10.1992. Rest of the sub-Section (7 -b) prior to its amendment in the year, 1992 was inserted by M.P. Act No.15 of 1980. Thus, prior to the insertion of sub-Section (7- b) into Section 165 there was no such restriction and the rights of Bhumiswami had already been accrued to the predecessor in title of the respondent/petitioners. Now, the question would accrue is as to whether the insertion of sub-Section 7-b in Section 165 of MPLRC could be said to have retrospective effect and would also cover the cases in which substantial rights of Bhumiswami have already been accrued to the parties."

The Court has categorically observed that the Patta as well as the Bhumiswami rights were conferred prior to amendment.

Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Savina Park Resorts (supra) had an occasion to deal with the similar issue and it is held that permission of Collector as provided under Section 165 (7-b) of the Code of 1959, was required, was upheld and since the said aspect has already been analyzed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.379/2019 in the light of the decisions in the matter of Savina Park Resorts and Tours Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (supra) and Mary Pushpam vs. Telvi Curusumary and Ors (supra), this Court is bound by the said decision and no contrary view can be taken therefrom is concerned.

If the aforesaid principles are applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as well as the language of Section 165 (7-

b) of the Code is seen, then even after conferral of the bhumiswami right in favour of the lease holder, permission from the competent authority i.e. Collector, is required to be taken prior to selling of the land in question. The authorities have considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and have rejected the application because the sale deed executed without obtaining permission from the competent authority is void ab-initio.

Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.