Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ratanlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 20 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 468 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RATANLAL S/O GHEESA CHAMAR, AGED ABOUT 70
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE LABOR R/O
FATEHPUR TEHSIL KHILCHIPUR DISTT. RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI LOKENDRA SINGH JHALA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH COLLECTOR
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANGILAL S/O NANDA DOGI, AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE FATEHPUR,
TEH. KHILCHIPUR, JILA RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. CHOTHMAL S/O NANDA DOGI, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE FATEPUR,
TEH. KHILCHIPUR, JILA RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. BADRILAL S/O NANDA DOGI, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE FATEPUR,
TEH. KHILCHIPUR, JILA RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SMT. GENDIBAI W/O NANDA DOGI, AGED ABOUT
55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
FATEPUR, TEH. KHILCHIPUR JILA RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. VIJAY KUMAR SAXENA S/O RAMCHADRA JI
SAXENA GRAM BHAVSAR MOHALLA JEERAPUR,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 22-05-2024
14:42:49
2
TEH. KHILCHIPUR, JILA RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDNETS)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 takes exception to the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8608 of 2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
02. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that in the year 1960, lease of the land bearing Survey No.465/28 admeasuring 1.173 hectare situated at Village
- Fatehpur, Tehsil - Khilchipur, District - Rajgarh was allotted to one Ghisa S/o Khema. Ghisha died in the year 1976, and thereafter, name of petitioner, being son of Ghisa was mutated in the revenue record in the year 1976 - 77. In the year 1982 - 83, respondent No.2 to 5 took the possession of the land in question forcibly from the appellant based on a sale deed registered in the year 1976.
03. The contention of the appellant is that the said sale deed is forged one, on the basis of which respondents No.2 to 5 wrongly got mutated their names in the revenue record. In the year 2021, the appellant filed an application before the Collector, complaining about his dispossession by the respondents. The Collector registered a complaint as Revision Case No.34-A/21/2001-02 against respondents No.2 to 5. A report was called by the Collector from the Sub Divisional Officer which revealed that respondents No.2 to 5 had Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 22-05-2024 14:42:49 3 purchased the land by registered sale deed. According to the appellant, he knows how to sign and does not use thumb impression, therefore, the sale deed bearing his thumb impression is forged.
04. The Collector after considering the reply filed by respondents No.2 to 4 and hearing the parties, declared the sale deed void and directed them to hand over the possession. Being aggrieved, respondents No.2 to 5 filed a revision under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPLRC') before the Commissioner, District - Rajgarh. Vide order dated 04.12.2003, the Commissioner allowed the revision solely on the ground that the sale deed was executed in the year 1976, whereas the amendment in Section 165(7-b) of the MPLRC was brought in the year 1980 which has prospective effect, hence, the sale deed has wrongly been declared void.
05. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, the appellant preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.06.2014, upholding the order passed by the Commissioner.
06. Against the order dated 09.06.2014, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2024 by upholding the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge has held that the appellant ought to have filed a civil suit well within time. It has also been held that the Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue had rightly held that the sale deed was executed in the year 1976, whereas the provision of Section 165(7-b) of the MPLRC came into the statute on 24.10.1980, therefore, any transaction before the amendment would not be affected. Hence, the present writ appeal is before this Court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 22-05-2024 14:42:49 407. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant never sold the land to respondents No.2 to 5 as his name was not mutated in the revenue record after the death of his father. For want of mutation of his name as owner, he had no title to sell the land. It has further been contended that the appellant is a literate person and the sale deed bearing his thumb impression is forged one. Had he executed the sale deed, he would have signed it as seller, therefore, these grounds divulge that the sale deed is forged one. Even otherwise, under the provision of Section 165(7-b) of the MPLRC, the lease land cannot be sold without the permission of the Collector. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside.
08. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
09. The bone of contention of appellant's counsel is that in the year 1975
- 76, name of father of the appellant namely Ghisa Chamar was there in the revenue record. However, in the year 1977 - 78, without mutation of the name of appellant, sale deed was registered. and if the name of the appellant was not there in the revenue record, how could he sell the land to the respondents, meaning thereby, the sale deed executed in the year 1976 is void ab initio and liable to be cancelled.
10. The expressions "void" and "voidable" have been subject matter of consideration on innumerable occasions by Courts.
11. A transaction from its very inception being in violation of law is a nullity and, therefore, void ab initio. As a matter of fact, a declaration in that behalf is not required by a Court of law; whereas in contrast, a transaction which otherwise is good act in the eyes of law, unless; avoided is a voidable act, i.e., if a suit is filed for a declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 22-05-2024 14:42:49 5 forged and fabricated and a party who alleges so is obliged to prove it; seeking a declaration in that behalf in a Court of law.
12. In other words, where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be void but would obviously be voidable. [See: Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v/s Jai Prakash University & Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 534].
13. For ready reference Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is reproduced below:-
"31. When cancellation may be ordered.--
(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
( 2 ) I f the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
14. A Three Judges' Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767 has held as under:-
"25. It i s a well established position that the remedy of Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i s extra-ordinary and discretionary. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot be oblivious t o th e conduct o f the party invoking that remedy. The fact that the party may have several remedies for the same cause of action, he must elect h is remedy and cannot be permitted to indulge in multiplicity of actions. The exercise of discretion to issue a writ is a matter of granting equitable relief. It is a remedy in equity. In the present case, th e Hig h Court declined to interfere at t h e instance o f t h e appellant having Signature Not Verified noticed the above clinching facts. No fault can be found with the Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 22-05-2024 14:42:49 6 approach of the H ig h Court in refusing to exercise its writ jurisdiction because of the conduct of the appellant in pursuing multiple proceedings for th e sa me relief a n d also because the appellant had an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy to which he has already resorted to. This view of the High Court has found favour with Justice Dipak Misra. We respectfully agree with that view.
*****
27. As the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with liberty to the appellant to pursue other statutory remedy already invoked by him, examining any other contention at his instance would be awarding premium to a litigant who does not deserve such indulgence. The fact whether the compromise deed entered into by the appellant was voluntary and at his own volition or under duress, is essentially a question of fact. That cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Depending o n t h e answer thereto, the other issues may become relevant and would arise for consideration. The only relief that can be granted and which has already been clarified by the High Court in the impugned judgment, is to keep all questions open to enable the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy already invoked by him. It is open to t h e a p p ella n t t o con ten d i n t h o s e proceedings t h a t the Extinguishment Deed could not have been unilaterally executed b y the Society. That plea can be examined by the statutory Forum provided for that purpose.
***** *****
48. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, we a re o f the considered opinion that, the High Court has justly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant with liberty to the appellant to pursue statutory remedy resorted to by him under the Act of 1960 o r b y resorting t o a n y other remedy as may be advised and permissible i n la w. A l l questions t o be considered in those proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits.
49. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in the above terms with no order as to costs."
15. In view of the dicta of the Three Judges' Bench in the case of Satya Pal Anand (supra), we do not find any force in the arguments advanced by Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 22-05-2024 14:42:49 7 learned counsel for the appellant, as disputed question of facts are involved in the present case and the same cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. This Court cannot declare the sale deed void ab initio as the same is under the domain of Civil Court, hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
16. Resultantly, admission is declined and the Writ Appeal is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby upheld.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 22-05-2024
14:42:49