Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar And Anr. vs Board Of Revenue And 9 Ors. on 1 February, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
Writ Petition No.7642/2012
1 Anil Kumar S/o Bherulal Bafna aged
about 34 years, Occupation- Business R/o
Dalpura, Tehsil Sardarpur, District Dhar,
M.P. PETITIONERS
2 Praveen Kumar S/o Bherulal Bafna, aged
about 32 years, Occupation- Business R/o
Dalpura, Tehsil Sardarpur, District Dhar,
M.P.
VERSUS
1 Board of Revenue Gwalior, M.P.
2 The Collector Dhar, District Dhar, M.P.
3 Govind Patidar S/o Laxminarayan, aged
about adult- Occupation - Carpenter, R/o
Rajgarh, Tehsil Sardarpur, District Dhar,
M.P.
4 Prafull Kumar S/o Sumatilal Mahajan,
aged -adult, Occupation- Business, R/o
Dalpura, Tehsil Sardarpur, District Dhar,
M.P.
5 Pritesh Kumar S/o Sumatilal Mahajan,
aged about adult, Occupation-Business, RESPONDENTS
R/o Dalpura, Tehsil Sardarpura, District
Dhar, M.P.
6 Smt. Chandarbai W/o Champalal
Mahajan, aged about adult, Occupation-
Not Known, R/o Dalpura, Tehsil
Sardarpur, District Dhar, M.P.
7 Himmatlal S/o Champalal Mahajan, aged
about adult, Occupation- Business, R/o
Dalpura, Tehsil Sardarpur, District Dhar,
M.P.
8 Mankilal S/o Champalal Mahajan, aged
about Adult, Occupation-Business R/o
Dalpura, Tehsil Sardarpur, District Dhar,
M.P.
9 Ashok Kumar S/o Champalal Mahajan,
aged about Adult, Occupation- Business,
- : 2 :-
R/o Dalpura, Tehsil Sardarpur, District
Dhar, M.P.
10 Dilip Kumar S/o Champalal Mahajan,
aged about Adult, Occupation- Business,
R/o Dalpura, Tehsil Sardarpur, District
Dhar, M.P.
Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Karanjawala, learned counsel for the
Respondents No. 1 & 2.
Shri G.M. Agrawal, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3.
None for the respondents nos. 4 to 10
Writ Petition No.5819/2012
1 Prafull Kumar S/o Sumatilal Mahajan,
aged about 38 years, Occupation-
Business.
2 Pritesh Kumar S/o Sumatilal Mahajan, PETITIONERS
aged about 33 years, Occupation-
Business, Both Resident of Tilak Marg,
Rajgarh, Tahsil-Sardarpur, District Dhar,
M.P.
VERSUS
1 The State of M.P. through Collector,
District Dhar, M.P.
2 Govind Patidar S/o Shri Laxminarayan,
aged about Major, Occupation Business,
R/o Rajgarh, Tahsil Sardarpur, District
Dhar, M.P.
3 Smt. Chandarbai W/o Champalal
Mahajan, aged about Major, Occupation-
Household
4 Himmatlal S/o Champalala Mahajan,
aged - Major, Occupation- Business
5 Manilal S/o Champalal Mahajan, aged
Major Occupation- Business RESPONDENTS
6 Ashok Kumar S/o Champalal Mahajan,
aged - Major, Occupation- Business
7 Dilip Kumar S/o Champalal Mahajan,
aged Major, Occupation Business,
respondent No.3 to 7 all resident of
Rajgarh, Tahsil- Sardarpur, District Dhar,
M.P.
8 Anil Kumar S/o Bherulal Bafna, aged
- : 3 :-
Major, Occupation- Business.
9 Praveen Kumar S/o Bherulal Bafna, aged
Major, Occupation Business R/o of
Dalpura, Thsil Sardarpur, District Dhar,
M.P.
Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Karanjawala, learned counsel for the
Respondents No. 1
Shri G.M. Agrawal, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.
None for the respondents nos. 4 to 10
*******
ORDER
(01.02.2022) Heard. Since the two petitions involve similar facts and issues, therefore, both are being disposed of by common order. For the sake of convenience, I will advertise the facts in Writ Petition No. 5819 of 2012 in the case of Prafulla Kumar and another Vs. The State of M.P. and others.
The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2011 passed by Board of Revenue, Gwalior (M.P.) whereby the order dated 04.08.2010 passed by Additional Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore in case No. 244/Revision/2006-07 has been set aside and the sale deed executed in their favour has been declared void due to non-compliance of the provisions of.
The facts of the case ....
1. That husband of respondent No.3 and father of respondent No. 4 to 7 i.e. Late Champalal filed a Civil Suit No.50-A/1990 seeking a decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction. According to late Champalal, he owns agriculture land survey No.546 area 3.052 hectares (old No.191) after the death of his father late Gendalal. Accordingly to the plaintiff in the year 1923-24 Samvat 1980, the
- : 4 :-
name of his father late Gendalal S/o Kastur Chand was recorded as 'Agriculturist' of the above suit land in the revenue records. Thereafter, in the years 1953-54 to 1957-58, the name of late Gendalal was recorded as " Pukka Krashak". From 1958-59 to 1962- 63 along with the name of Gendalal, the name of Government has also been recorded. In the year 1963 to 1968 the word "Pukka Krashak" has been replaced by Government Lessee. In the year 1986, after the death of Gendalal, when Champalal went to the Office of Tehsildar for mutation his name, he came to know about the aforesaid changes in the revenue record. He submitted an application which was registered as revenue case No.1/86-87/A/19 and after enquiry, vide order dated 03.07.1987, the Tehsildar passed the order for mutation of his name. After some time late Champalal received a notice from the Office of Collector, Dhar dated
05.07.1990 for recording his name as government lessee, which gave a cause of action to him for filing the aforesaid suit.
2. The State Government appeared as a defendant and contested the suit with a plea that the aforesaid suit land was never allotted to late Gendalal on lease for agriculture purposes. He was given a lease of land for the establishment of Ginning Factory. Plaintiff's father Gendalal established a Ginning Factory and now same is closed, hence, the purpose of the lease is no more in existence and hence land is liable to be reverted to the Govt. The learned Civil Court framed six issues for adjudication and vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.1996 declared that the rights of Bhumiswami of the plaintiff have been perfected accordingly he has been declared as the landowner. Defendant/Govt. has been restrained to interfere in peaceful possession.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the Govt. preferred a First Appeal No.1-A/1997. Vide judgment dated
- : 5 :-
15.10.1999, the Additional District Judge has dismissed the First Appeal. Thereafter, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred a Second Appeal No.21/2000, which was also dismissed on 17.04.2000 as no substantial question of law was found involved. Thereafter, the State of Madhya Pradesh approached the Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.5126/2001 and the same was dismissed on 20.08. 2001. In view of the above, the decree of the title of Bhumiswami in favour of late Champalal has attained finality.
4. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, the Additional Collector has initiated suo moto proceeding in order to examine the validity of the order dated 03.07.1987 passed by Tehsildar, Sardarpur passed in favour of late Champalal. Vide order dated 05.0931997, the Additional Commissioner has declined to exercise the suo moto power in light of judgment and decree passed in favour of Champalal.
5. After the aforesaid proceedings, the Champalal expired and his legal representatives i.e. respondents No. 3 to 7, have sold the part of survey No.546 area 20 x 50 = 1000 sq.ft. to petitioner No.1 vide sale deed dated 27.10.2004. Vide another sale deed dated 27.10.2004, the respondent No. 3 to 7 have sold another part of land area 0.009 hectare (20 x 50 = 1000 sqft) to petitioner No.2.
6. Respondent No.2 Govind Patidar has submitted a complaint dated 19.09.2005 that land survey No.545 area 0.105 hectare and 546 area 3.052 hectare is an agriculture land given to late Gendalal on lease for agriculture purpose, hence, same could not have been transferred without the permission of Collector under Section 165 (6-
a) and 165 (7-b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, hence in absence of permission of Collector above sale be declared as illegal. The Tehsildar, Sardarpur has registered the complaint as case No. 4/A- 6A/03-04, and vide order dated 29.03.2004 has removed the word
- : 6 :-
''non transferable'' for the land survey No.545 area 0.105 hectare and 546 area 3.052 hectare.
7. The Collector initiated suo moto proceeding under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 has registered case No.1/05-06 and issued a show-cause notice to sellers and purchasers. Vide order dated 31.05.2007, the Collector has upheld the sale deed and maintained the order of Tehsildar dated 29.03.2004 but held that under Section 165(7-b), of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 the sale without permission of Collector is void.
8. Being aggrieved by the order of Collector dated 31.05.2007, respondents No.3, 4 and 5 have preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner Indore Division, Indore, which was registered as case No.243/Revision/2006-2007. The present petitioners have also preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner which was registered as case No.244/Revision/2006- 2007. By a common order dated 04.08.2010, the Additional Commissioner has held that since the Champalal and his legal representatives were not 'leaseholders' but became 'Bhuniswami', therefore, provision of Section 165 (7-b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 would not attract. It has also been held that the judgment of Civil Court is binding on Revenue Courts, hence allowed both the revisions by setting aside the order of Collector.
9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondent No.2 has preferred revision No.33/One/2011 before the Board of Revenue. Vide order dated 02.08.2011, the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision and set aside the order of Additional Commissioner and maintained the order of Collector. Hence, present petition before this Court.
Submissions of learned counsels...
10. Shri Rohit Mangal learned counsel for the petitioner has argued
- : 7 :-
that respondent No.2 has no right to prefer a revision before the Board of Revenue against the Additional Commissioner as he is not an adversary litigant in this case. Shri Mangal has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir V. District Collector, Raigad AIR 2012 SC 1339 in support of his contention that respondent No.2 could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant. Once the Commissioner has passed the order in favour of the plaintiff then respondent No.2/3 has no right to prefer a revision against the said order. The Apex Court has held that the person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the individual. The State Government was one of the contesting respondents before the Additional Commissioner did not prefer any revision before the Board of Revenue against the order of Commissioner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
Learned counsel has further submitted that once the Civil Court has granted the decree in favour of late Champalal that he has become an absolute owner of land in question, then Government has wrongly treated him as a lease holder of the land. The decree passed by the Civil Court has attained finality up to the Apex Court. Once the Champalal had acquired the Bhumiswami right title then the land is no more lease land and for which no permission of Collector is required under Section 165 (7-b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code,1959. The Additional Commissioner has passed the order dated 04.08.2010 after considering the facts in totality and provision of law but the Board of Revenue in a slip shot manner has set aside the order. The facts of the case on which, the Board of Revenue has placed reliance are altogether different while passing the impugned order, which is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Counsel for the petitioner
- : 8 :-
submits that although section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code,1959 does not provide any limitation for exercising the Suo motu power as held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2011 MP 27 that such power must be exercised within 180 days from the date of coming into the knowledge of illegality, impropriety or irregularity exercised by subordinate officers. Shri Mangal learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Mydt. V. State of M.P. and another 2013 RN 8 but counsel for the respondent No.2 has informed that the aforesaid judgment has stayed in Writ Appeal by Division Bench of this High Court.
11. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order passed by the BOR despite the fact that the State Government did not prefer any revision against the order of Additional Commissioner. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the Gendalal got the land from the State Government for establishing the Ginning Factory but his name was wrongly recorded as agriculturist after M.P. Land Revenue came into force. Gendalal and his son have acquired the title for which the Govt. has not disputed but by virtue of Section 165 (7-b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, they could not have sold the land without permission of the Collector.
12. Shri Agrawal learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant has contended that so far as the title of late Genda land and after his death, his son late Champalal are concerned, there is no dispute after the decree passed by the Civil Court they are treated as Bumiswami of the land in question but the land was originally a Govt which was given a lease for a limited purpose, therefore by virtue amendment brought in the year 1992 in
- : 9 :-
Section 165 (7b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 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 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 who subsequently becomes Bhumiswami of such land, shall not transfer such land without the permission of Revenue Officer, not below the rank of a Collector. The provision of Section 165(7-b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 applies in the acquisition of Bhumiswami right over the government land held by the lessee, therefore, the Board of Revenue is the highest Revenue Court in the hierarchy under M.P. Revenue Code has rightly set aside the order of Additional Commissioner and upheld the order of Collector. The locus of answering respondent is not liable to be examined because no such objection has been raised before the Board of Revenue and the answering respondent being a vigilant citizen and whistleblower has acted only in order to protect the government land and law, therefore, his locus is not an important issue in this matter. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance over the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Savina Park Resorts and Tours Pvt. Ltd. Gwalior V. State of M.P. and others 2012 RN 97 in which it has been held that Patta holder become Bhumiswami but without permission of Collector, he cannot transfer the land by virtue of provision under Section 165 (7-b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code. Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance over the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ambika Prasad Bakshi V. Onkar Prasad Saini AIR 2005 MP 60 in which it has been held that Revenue Courts are bound to decision given by the Civil Court and should mutate the name of decree holder. The Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to enquire regarding rights of defendants after coming into force of Code, hence, once the decree has been passed in
- : 10 :-
favour of Champalal, the said nature of decree cannot be examined in revenue proceeding,hence, prayed for the dismissal of writ petitions. Conclusions and findings ....
13. The factual aspect of the case is not in many controversies between the parties and only the interpretation of section 165 (7b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code,1959 is to be examined in the given facts and circumstances of this case. The decree of the title of 'Bhumiwasi' in favour of late Champalal had attained finality and even the Government, as well as complainant, are disputing the same that Champalal had acquired the Bhumiswami right and after his death legal heirs have acquired the same status. But is to be examined in what circumstances the Civil Court had held that the plaintiff: Champalal has perfected the title of Bhumiswami. Before giving such findings, the Civil Court observed in para 8 that on the basis of Exhibit P/5 in the Samvat 1980, the father of the plaintiff i.e. Gendalal was given a right of 'Marusi Kastkar', who was in possession prior to the said lease. In such a lease, there was no condition for the establishment of Ginning Factory. In para 11, the Civil Court has held that it is not established that the Government gave suit land for the establishment of Ginning Factory. Nature of the Ex. P/5 gave a strong probability that Gendalal was in possession before Ex. P/5 as 'Marusi Krashak' and held that irrespective of the nature vide Ex. P/5, after M.P. Land Revenue Code came into force in the year 1959, the plaintiff has acquired the right of Bhumiswami over the suit land and after the year 1959 the said lease has lost its existence. In para 19, the Civil Court has held that by virtue of the effect of the law came into force by way M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the plaintiff has acquired the title of Bhumiswami.
The relevant above paras are reproduced below:-
- : 11 :-
11- mDRk fo'ys"k.k ds vuqlkj iV~Vk izih5 ,oa laor~ 1980 dh tek canh izih1 ds fo'Yks"k.k es ;g izekf.kr ugh gksrk gS fd 'kklu }kjk oknxzLRk Hkwfe ftfuax QsDVªh Mkyus ds iz;kstu gsrq 'kklu }kjk oknh dks nh xbZ Fkh] blds foijhr laHkkoukvksa dh cgqyrk ,oa nLrkost izih5 dh izo`fRr ;g n'kkZrh gS fd mDRk nLrkost ds }kjk oknxzLRk Hkwfe ij iV~Vk laor~ 1982 izih 5 ds }kjk iwoZ ls gh Hkwfe ij dkfct oknh ds firk xsankyky dh ekS:lh d`"kd ds ukrs Hkwfe iznku dh xbZ FkhA bu dkj.kksa ls lacaf/kr okn iz'u ds le{k ^^ugh^^ fu"d"kZ vafdr fd;k x;k gSA 19- bl izdkj mDRk fo'ys"k.k ls Li"V gS fd fof/k ds izHkko ls o"kZ 1959 esa e0iz0 Hkw&jktLo laafgrk ds izHkko'khy gksus dh fnukad dks oknh us Hkfe Lokeh LoRo vftZr dj fy;s FksA bl dkj.k okn iz'u ds le{k ^^gka^^ fu"d"kZ vafdr fd;k x;k gSA
14. It is clear from the aforesaid decree that the father of the plaintiff was in possession of Govt. land before lease Ex. P/5 and after his death Champalal came into the possession and accordingly by virtue of provision M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 , the Champalal right and title has perfected into the Bhumiswami right.
15. Section 158 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is as under:-
"158. Bhumiswami.-[(1)]Every person who at the time of coming into force of this Code, belongs to any of the following classes shall be called a bhumiswami and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon a bhumiswami by or under this Code, namely
(a) every person in respect of land held by him in the Mahakoshal region in bhumiswami or bhumidhari rights in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (II of 1955);
(b) every person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya Bharat region as a Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or Concessional holder, as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat, 2007 (66 of 1950);
(c) every person in respect of land held by him in the Bhopal region as an occupant as defined in the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (IV of 1932);
(d) (i) every person in respect of land held by him in the Vindhya Pradesh region as a pachapan paintalis tenant, pattedar tenant, a grove holder or as a holder of tank as defined in the Vindhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953 (III of 1955);
(ii) every person in respect of land (other than land which is a grover or tank or which has been acquired or which is required for Government or public purposes) held by him in the Vindhya Pradesh region as a gair haqdar tenant and in respect of which he is entitled to a patta in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 57 of the Rewa State Land Revenue and Tenancy Code, 1935;
- : 12 :-
(iii) every person in respect of land held by him as a tenant in the Vindhya Pradesh region and in respect of which he is entitled to a patta in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 151 of the Vindhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953 (III of 1955), but has omitted to obtain such patta before the coming into force of this Code,
(e) every person in respect of land held by him in Sironj region as a khatedar tenant or as a grove holder as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (3 of 1955).
[(2) A Ruler of an Indian State forming part of the State of Madhya Pradesh who, at the time of coming into force of this Code, was holding land or was entitled to hold land as such Ruler by virtue of the covenant or agreement entered into by him before the commencement of the Constitution, shall, as from the date of coming into force of this Code, be a bhumiswami of such land under the Code and shall be subject to all the rights and liabilities conferred and imposed upon a bhumiswami by or under this Code.] [(3) Every person-
(i) who is holding land in bhumiswami right by virtue of a lease granted to him by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer on or before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of such commencement, and (ii) to whom land is allotted in bhumiswami right by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer after the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of such allotment, shall be deemed to be a bhumiswami in respect of such land and shall be subject to all the rights and liabilities conferred and imposed upon a bhumiswami by or under this Code :
[Provided that no such person shall transfer such land within a period of ten years from the date of lease or allotment and thereafter may transfer such land with the permission obtained under sub-section (7-b) of section 165.] Explanation.-In this section, the expression "Ruler" and "Indian State"
shall have the same meanings as are assigned to these expressions in clauses (22) and (15) respectively by Article 366 of the Constitution of India."
The provision of Section 158 (1) (b) of Land Revenue Code says that every person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya Bharat region as a Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or concessional holder, as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 shall be called a 'Bhumiswami' and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon a Bhumiswami by or under this Code. Sub-section 3 of Section 158 says that every person who is holding land in Bhoomiswami right by virtue of a lease granted to him by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer on or before
- : 13 :-
the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be a Bhoomiswami in respect of such land and shall be subject to all the rights and liabilities conferred and imposed upon a Bhoomiswami by or under this Code and as per proviso that no such person shall transfer such land within a period of ten years from the date of lease or allotment. By way of explanation, it has been clarified that the expression ''Ruler'' and "Indian State" shall have the same meanings as are assigned to these expressions in clauses (22) and (15) respectively by article 366 of the Constitution of India. Section 157 clarifies that there shall be only one class of tenure- holder of lands held from the State to be known as Bhumiswami, therefore by virtue of Section 57 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 , the State Government is having ownership in all land but the person holding tenure rights and tenancy rights are called as Bhoomiswami under Section 158.
16. Section 165 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 gives the right to Bhumiswami to transfer any interest in his land subject to the other provision of this section and the provision of section 158. In this case, only provision of section 165 (7-b) is required to be considered, which is reproduced below:
"[(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] 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.]"
17. According to the aforesaid provision notwithstanding anything
- : 14 :-
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 and person who subsequently becomes Bhoomiswami of land, by virtue of the right to occupy the land granted by the State Government or the Collector as a Government lessee shall not transfer land without the permission of a revenue officer, not below the rank of a Collector. As per decree granted by the Civil Court, the father of the plaintiff was found in possession of government land by virtue of lease Ex. P/5 as Krashak and whose right had been perfected as Bhoomiswami right after enactment of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, as per the finding given by the trial court, as upheld by the Apex Court, the plaintiff: Champalal became a Bhoomiswami by virtue of the provisions of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, neither he nor his father was the absolute owner of the land by virtue of succession on inheritance. Late Gendalal and after his death his son Plaintiff Champalal had Government land as Krushak by virtue of a lease or prior to lease and perfected the title of Bhumiswami, therefore, the case of the respondent No.3 to 7 falls under the category of a person who holds the land from the State Government or the person who hold the land in a Bhumiswami right or whom right to occupy the land is granted by t he Collector and subsequently becomes Bhumiswami of such land, hence, by virtue of 165 (7-b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code before selling the land the respondent No. 3 to 7 ought to have taken permission from the Collector. The Board of Revenue has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, thus both the petitions are hereby dismissed. Since the entire action of the respondent No.3 to 7 in execution sale deed with petitioners is illegal by virtue of 165 (7-b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code which cannot be
- : 15 :-
given approval by this Court in this writ petition.
18. Shri Rohit Mangal has raised the issue of locus of respondent No. 2 in respect of filling of the Revision before the Board of Revenue. So far as locus of respondent No.2 in file revision before the Revenue Court is concerned, Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code is silent and only provides that subject to the provision of sub- sections (2), (3), (4) and (5), the Board may, at any time on its own motion or an application made by any party, call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which an order has been passed under this Code by the commissioner and if it appears that such subordinate Revenue Officer has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by this Code; or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material may make such order in the case as it or he thinks fit, therefore, any party can file a revision and for which the locus is not liable to be examined. In the revision, the Board of Revenue is only required to examine whether the Commissioner, Collector or subordinate authority has exercised the jurisdiction within the provision of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and has not acted any illegality or material irregularity in the proceeding. Admittedly, respondent No.2 was party before the Collector as well as Commissioner, hence he has the right to file revision. He may not adversarial litigant but the statute has conferred power to him to file revision.
In view of the above discussion both the writ petitions are dismissed.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Praveen PRAVEEN NAYAK 2022.02.03 18:24:09 +05'30'