Sudhir vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Vishal Mishra, J

1.Challenge is made to order dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2/Collector Burhanpur District Burhanpur (M.P.) wherein in exercise of suo moto revisional power on the complaint made by private respondent No.4, the Collector has taken away Bhumiswami rights which were conferred on the petitioner vide order dated 29.09.2003 and has directed for dispossession from the property in question.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased the property in question from private respondents No.4 to 8 by registered sale deed dated 11.11.2024 in respect of land bearing Khasra No.67/2/1 admeasuring 0.87 hectares. Father of private respondents No.4, 6 to 8 namely Soma acquired Bhumiswami rights of the property in question vide order dated 29.09.2003. Prior to acquiring Bhumiswami rights, the said Soma was cultivating the land in question for more than 15 years and his name was recorded in the revenue records as a Govt. lessee. After acquiring Bhumiswami rights, name of Soma was recorded in revenue records and after his death, name of his legal representatives i.e. private respondents were recorded. In the meantime, land acquisition proceedings were initiated with respect to some part of the land and consequent thereto compensation was also awarded to the erstwhile land owners. On 11.11.2024, the private respondents transferred the said land to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed and after purchasing the same, the petitioner approached the Tehsildar for mutation of his name in the revenue records. A complaint was made by respondent No.4 that the land in question is a Govt. land and the same is illegally occupied by the petitioner. On receipt of said complaint, the Collector directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to enquire into the matter. The matter was enquired into and a report was filed and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it was observed that the property in question had been alienated in contravention to the provisions of Section 165(7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and held that provisions of Section 182 thereof were not followed. Further, directions were issued to initiate proceedings under Section 182 thereof for eviction. The said recommendation made by the Sub-Divisional Officer was placed before the Collector who has given a mechanical sanction to the report, without applying his mind and without considering the reply of the petitioner as well as the fact that the erstwhile land owner has acquired Bhoomiswami rights over the property in question; therefore, the provisions under Section 182 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 are not applicable.

It is argued by petitioner's counsel that the petitioner is bona fide purchaser of the land in question. The exercise by the Collector in terms of revisional power under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is beyond the limitation period of 180 days; therefore, the same is hit by the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (dead) through LRs & anr. vs State of M.P. reported in ILR 2011 M.P. 1. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.

Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents/State has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order. It is pointed out that the land in question which was given on lease was a non-transferable land. The private respondents were well aware of the fact that the land in question is a non-transferable land, but despite the same, without seeking permission from the Collector in terms of Section 165(7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 they have transferred the land by registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It may be a case that Bhoomiswami rights were conferred on the respondents No.5 to 8, but the fact remains that the land in question was recorded as a non-transferable land in the revenue records. The same could not have been transferred without taking sanction or permission from the Collector in terms of Section 165(7-b). It is contended that as per records in the misal bandobast of 1985-86, the land was recorded in the name of State Govt. and was non-transferable. From 1998-99 and 2001-2002, it was recorded in the name of Soma as a Govt. leasee. From the land in question, some part thereof i.e. 0.013 hectare was acquired for the purpose of construction of National Highway and the remaining land was sold on 11. 11.2024 by registered sale deed without taking any permission from the Collector in terms of Section 165(7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The judgement passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (supra) will not be of any help to the petitioner because he purchased the land in the year 2024 and as soon as the factum of purchase of the land in the year 2024 without sanction from the Competent Authority came to the knowledge of the authorities, immediate action has been taken. It is not a case wherein the authorities were aware of the transfer of the land from a long time. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Heard learned counsels of the parties and perused the record.

From perusal of the record, it is an admitted position that the petitioner purchased the land in question in 2024 by registered sale deed on 11. 11.2024. On 25.11.2024, the complaint was made to the authorities regarding sale of the land in question without seeking permission from the competent authority. The land was allotted on patta to one Soma and his name was recorded in revenue record as a Govt. leasee and the land in question was non-transferable. The part of land i.e. 0.013 hectare was also acquired for construction of National Highway and compensation was also paid. However, the fact remains that at the relevant time, the land was not transferred in favour of petitioner. It was transferred by registered sale deed dated 11.11.2024. Therefore, the factum of land being acquired or Bhoomiswami rights conferred upon Soma will be of no help to petitioner. The fact remains that the land in question was a Govt. land and was granted on lease and the same was also non-transferable. Therefore, provisions of Section 165(7-b) of the M.P.L.R.C. are clearly attracted in the case.

For a ready reference, Section 165(7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is reproduced as under :

Rights of transfer.

....

"(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."

If the aforesaid provision is seen, then it is clear that the land in question which is non-transferable cannot be transferred without taking permission from the Collector. The transfer of land in favour of petitioner by private respondents is per se illegal as no prior sanction was taken. It is a specific finding recorded by the authorities that in Revenue Case No. 0047/A-59/1997-98 vide order dated 29.08.1998 out of Survey No.67/2 area being 1 hectare was allotted as a Govt. Patta in favour of Soma and it was a non-transferable land. There is no dispute with respect to the aforesaid proposition. The learned Collector has taken note of all aspects of the matter and passed the impugned order which does not warrant any interference in this petition.

The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.