Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mokshada Khodiyar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 22601 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
MOKSHADA KHODIYAR W/O SHRI VIJAY KHODIYAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PARTNER
QUALITY CONCRETE PRODUCT 2324/2 WRITE TOWN
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIPIN YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADDL. COLLECTOR J A B A L P U R JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. TEHSILDAR JABALPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 22797 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. AMIT VEGAD S/O DR. J.L. VEGAD, AGED ABOUT 47
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN R/O 1836,
WRIGHT TOWN (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DILIP VEGAD S/O LATE A.L.VEGAD, AGED ABOUT
63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN R/O 1836
WRIGHT TOWN JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 5/13/2024
2:28:43 PM
2
3. SHARAD VEGAD S/O LATE A.L.VEGAD, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN
R/O 1836 WRIGHT TOWN JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIPIN YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADDL. COLLECTOR STATE FOREST RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, JABALPUR DISTT-JABALPUR (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) DISTT-
JABALPUR (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. TEHSILDAR TEHSILDAR DISTT-JABALPUR (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 23810 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. DEEPAK AGRAWAL S/O SHRI TULSIRAM
AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER JAY PRAKASH WARD
PURANI GALLA MANDI KARELI DIST.
NARSINGHPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. MEENA AGRAWAL W/O SHRI DEEPAK
AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE JAY PRAKASH WARD
PURANI GALLA MANDI KARELI DIST.
NARSINGHPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DHRUV AGRAWAL S/O SHRI DEEPAK AGRAWAL,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
SERVICE JAY PRAKASH WARD PURANI GALLA
MANDI KARELI DIST. NARSINGHPUR MP
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASTHA SEN
Signing time: 5/13/2024
2:28:43 PM
3
4. KU. AYUSHI AGRAWAL D/O SHRI DEEPAK
AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT JAY PRAKASH WARD
PURANI GALLA MANDI KARELI DIST.
NARSINGHPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(NONE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT. VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR JABALPUR DISTT. JABALPUR MP
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE
DEPARTMENT DISTT. JABALPUR MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. THE LOKAYUKT OFFICE OF LOKAYUKT BHAWAN,
OLD SECRETRATE, F BLOCK, SULTANIA ROAD,
SBI BANK SQUARE, IDAGH HILLS, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND SHRI
VISHWAMOHAN BHARDWAJ -ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This order shall also govern disposal of WP No.22601/2021, WP No.23810/2021 and WP No.22797/2021. For the sake of convenience, facts of WP No.22601/2021 are being taken note of.
2. By filing these petitions, the petitioners have sought quashment of order dated 29/09/2021. The facts as incorporated in the body of petition reveal that one Samlu Singh Gond owned the land situated at Khasra No.146, 147, 153 NB 239 PHN 36 RNM Jabalpur-2 Mauja Nanakheda District Jabalpur. In Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 5/13/2024 2:28:43 PM 4 accordance with the provisions of Section 165 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as MPLRC, for the sake of brevity), an application was moved by Samlu Singh Gond before the Collector, Jabalpur for permission to alienate the aforesaid property on the ground that he belonged to aboriginal tribe and wanted to alienate the property to a member who did not belong to aboriginal tribe. Hence, the request for alienation was platformed. The application was allowed vide order dated 31/05/2010 and after obtaining permission from the competent authority, the land in question was sold to the present petitioner by registered sale-deed contained in Annexure P/4. However, in the meantime, some complaints were made to Lokayukt and the Lokayukt issued direction to the Revenue Authorities to take action under Section 170-B of MPLRC. Resultantly, the SDO vide order dated 29/09/2021 held that the property was required to be reverted back to its original owner and accordingly, has issued direction for recording of name of erstwhile owner in the revenue record. Thus, assailing the order dated 29/09/2021, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order impugned is patently unsustainable inasmuch as, by passing the impugned order, a Sub-ordinate Authority has made an attempt to overreach an order passed by the Superior Authority. It is contended by the counsel that the permission was granted by the Additional Collector, Jabalpur to erstwhile owner, whereas by the impugned order, the effect of said permission has been nullified and the property has been directed to be recorded in the name of erstwhile owner. The SDO, before passing the impugned order, did not issue any notice to the petitioner nor afforded any opportunity of hearing. The SDO in a purely mechanical manner in terms of some direction issued by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 5/13/2024 2:28:43 PM 5 Lokayukt, proceeded to pass the order impugned. The right accrued to the petitioner on the basis of sale-deed (Annexure P/4) could not have been taken back, while passing the impugned order.
4. It is contended by the counsel that the impugned order not only results in recording of name of erstwhile owner in the property but automatically renders the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner to be null and void and also indirectly set asides the order of Additional Collector dated 31/05/2010 granting permission for alienation of the property. Learned counsel contends that it is not permissible within the scope of Section 170-B of MPLRC to set aside the permission granted by the Additional Collector under Section 165 of MPLRC. It is further contended by the counsel that before taking any action, opportunity of hearing to present petitioners was sine qua non and apart from the instructions so given by the Lokayukt, at no point of time any objection was taken from anyone including the erstwhile owner or his Legal Representatives or relatives regarding transactions in favour of the petitioner. The Authority was expected to appreciate that the impugned order was depriving the parties from their constitutional right as conferred under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, thus, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. It is contended by the counsel that to office of Lokayukt, complaints were made regarding the conduct of certain officers and also passing of the order by them in violation of the statutory provisions. Accordingly the Lokayukt directed the authorities to ensure that members of ab original tribe are not deprived of their right as regards the property. Resultantly, the Additional Collector, upon receiving the instructions from the office of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 5/13/2024 2:28:43 PM 6 Lokayukt, directed the SDO to ensure compliance of provisions of Section 170-B of MPLRC. The SDO while observing that there was conspiracy to alienate the property while projecting it to be surplus land, issued notice to the original owner of the property namely Mangilal Maravi and Samlu Singh Maravi and after considering their reply, passed the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order does not require any interference.
6. Learned counsel for the State further contends that in exercise of powers conferred under Section 170-B of MPLRC, the authority can ensure reverting back of the land to the members of aboriginal tribe, thus, while considering the aforesaid provisions which ensures welfare of a particular category of the community, the powers have been exercised. Hence, no interference is warranted and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the Lokayukt submits that an inquiry against the then revenue officers is pending before Lokayukt, therefore, submits that no interference with the impugned order is warranted.
8. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.
9. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
10. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that some complaint was made to the office of Lokayukt and the Lokayukt issued communication to the Authorities at Jabalpur and highlighting certain transactions to be in contravention of the provisions of MPLRC, issued direction for action. The said instructions issued by the Lokayukt were acted upon and ultimately the same ensued in passing of the impugned order by the SDO. The records which are available in the present case and also in the connected cases, reveal that some complaints were moved before the Lokayukt regarding erstwhile Collector, SDO and other Authorities and while dealing with those complaints, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 5/13/2024 2:28:43 PM 7 the Lokayukt initially conducted an inquiry and found that the allegations were unsustainable and baseless. The inquiry report by the Lokayukt is available in connected cases. However, later on, again the Lokayukt referred the matter questioning certain transactions to be in conflict with the provisions of MPLRC, resultantly, the impugned order was passed by the SDO.
11. A perusal of the entire record reveal that before passing of the impugned order, the present petitioner who had acquired the status of the owner, having entered in a sale-deed, was not issued any notice. The name of the present petitioner was undisputedly recorded in the revenue record on the basis of sale-deed which is contained in Annexure P/4. It is further evident from perusal of record that vide order dated 31/05/2010 (Annexure P/2), permission was accorded by the then Additional Collector, Jabalpur to the original owner to alienate the property and after obtaining due permission from the Additional Collector, Jabalpur dated 31/05/2010, the sale-deed in favour of the present petitioner was executed vide (Annexure P/4) and after execution of the sale- deed, the property in question was recorded in the name of the present petitioner also. Thus, from the date of granting permission dated 31/05/2010, till passing of impugned order dated 29/09/2021, the property remained in the name of present petitioner and at no point of time, anyone disputed the alienation of the property in favour of the petitioner. Neither, the original owner nor any of his relatives ever disputed the passing of order dated 31/05/2010 (Annexure P/2) nor execution of sale-deed in favour of the present petitioner. Thus, in the present case prima facie the interest of members of aboriginal tribe was duly safeguarded, as he had received the compensation as per the prevalent rate, the Additional Collector, before passing the order, had even requisitioned the report Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 5/13/2024 2:28:43 PM 8 from the SDO and Tahsildar and the SDO and Tahsildar had also submitted a report that the transaction was fair and it was not a shame transaction.
12. Thus, considering the report, the order of granting permission for alienation was passed on 31/05/2010. The order dated 31/05/2010 has not been assailed by any one as on date. Thus, when the matter was received by the Authorities i.e Collector having referred by the Lokayukt, it was incumbent upon the authorities to appreciate that the owner-ship was transferred in the name of the present petitioner on the basis of a sale-deed executed in favour of the present petitioner on the strength of an order passed by the Additional Collector granting permission for alienation.
13. It appears that the SDO, acted in a purely mechanical manner and proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29/09/2021 while issuing notice to the erstwhile owner. The entire order so passed by the SDO does not contain even any iota of whisper that the present petitioner was also heard before passing the impugned order. The order itself contains the fact that the erstwhile owner who had sold the property to the present petitioner, never made any objection nor disputed the transactions ever. The SDO, also considered the aspect of obtaining the permission dated 31/05/2010 for the purposes of alienation and if the SDO ultimately came to a conclusion that in the present case, the provisions of Section 170-B of MPLRC were to be exercised, the SDO ought to have first dealt with the debatable issue that as to whether the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 31/05/2010 granting permission to erstwhile owner to alienate the property in favour of the present petitioner, could have been impliedly nullified? The SDO was well aware that the property was transferred to the present petitioner and the facts pertaining to transfer in favour of the present petitioner were taken note of in the impugned order and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 5/13/2024 2:28:43 PM 9 ultimately the SDO passed the impugned order. Therefore, while ensuring strict adherence to the principles of natural justice, it was incumbent upon the SDO to issue notice to the present petitioner and afford an opportunity of hearing as well. As no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner nor any notice was given to the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice, therefore, the order passed by the SDO dated 29/09/2021 is unsustainable.
14. Moreover, the applicability of the provisions of Section 170-B of MPLRC to the case in hand, is another issue which is required to be mulled over as the provisions of Section 170-B of MPLRC cast upon a duty on the person who is in possession of the agricultural land belonging to a member of tribe on the date of commencement of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1980. The amendment Act 1980, came into force w.e.f. 24/10/1980 and the present petitioner was undoubtedly not in picture on 24/10/1980 and on 24/10/1980, the property was in possession of erstwhile owner who was belonging to aboriginal tribe. Ergo the provisions of Section 170-B of MPLRC in the present case, could not have been invoked.
15. The erstwhile owner who hailed from ab-original tribe himself approached the Collector seeking permission to sell the land owned by him to the present petitioner. The said application was duly mulled over by the Collector. As the proposed transaction of the alienation of the property was found to be genuine and bonafide, the permission was accorded.
16. Thus, apparently, the provisions of Section 170-B of MPLRC in the present case were not at all applicable, as the applicability of the Act is clearly stipulated under Section 170-B (1) of MPLRC. Hence, even otherwise the order which was passed by the SDO was unsustainable and resultantly, the order Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 5/13/2024 2:28:43 PM 10 impugned dated 29/09/2021 deserves to be and accordingly set aside.
17. If the lands in question have been mutated in the name of original owner who belonged to aboriginal tribe on the strength of the impugned order, the same may again be recorded in the name of petitioners if the same were recorded in their names on the basis of their respective sale-deeds within thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
18. Accordingly, the petitions stand allowed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 5/13/2024 2:28:43 PM