Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mulayam Singh And Anr. vs Budhuwa Chamar And Ors. on 22 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)MPHT140
JUDGMENT K.K. Lahoti, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5279/2000, dated 24-9-2001 allowing the petition and quashing the order dated 17-7-2000 passed in Revision No. R.N./11-1/R/513/93 Board of Revenue, Gwalior (MP) and order passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in Revision No. 222/A-6/91-92, dated 30th March, 1993 confirming the order of Additional Collector, District Chhattarpur in Revision Case No. 33/A-6/89-90, dated 28-12-1991 were restored.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent Budhuwa Chamar belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was landless person. He was allotted a piece of land on 3-11-1973 by Patta (Annexure A-1) under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The patta was granted by Tehsildar, Laundi, District Chhattarpur. It was a temporary patta. The conditions No. 7(1) and (4) of this Patta prohibit transfer of the land granted by the patta. However, condition No. 14 of the patta provides for conferral of bhumiswami rights on fulfilment of certain conditions and further grant of patta in the prescribed form "U". Subsequently, petitioner was declared Bhumiswami in the year 1982 and accordingly recorded in the revenue record. The appellants, who are brothers of respondent Budhuwa Chamar, got the land transferred in their names from the respondent without prior permission of the Collector. Respondent moved an application before the Collector, Chhattarpur on 3-1-89 for setting aside the sale and restoration of the possession. The Collector, invoking the power under Section 50 of the Code, found that the transaction between appellants and respondent No. 1 was in contravention of Section 165 (7-B) of the Code. Consequently, the sale was declared illegal by order Annexure P-3. The appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Sagar, who dismissed the appeal vide order Annexure P-4. Aggrieved by the orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 appellants filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide order dated 17th July, 2000 (Annexure P-5) and the orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 were set aside.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeal has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the sale was valid as respondent No. 1 was declared bhumiswami under Section 158 of the Code and the learned Additional Collector, Chhattarpur was not justified in invoking the provision of Section 50 of the Code to set aside the sale. Considering the arguments and from the perusal of the record, we find no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.
4. Respondent No. 1 was granted patta as landless person belonging to Scheduled Caste. This patta was granted on 3-11-73. He was declared bhumiswami in the year 1982 and his name was accordingly recorded. The sale deed executed on 3-3-1989 was in contravention of the provisions of Section 165 (7-B) of the Code, which reads as under :--
"Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a person who holds land from the State Government 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 reason to be recorded in writing."
5. It is not in dispute that no permission from the Collector was obtained and the sale was made without the permission of Collector. The respondent cannot transfer his land even though he is declared Bhumiswami, without the permission of the Collector. Transfer was made without such permission, so the appellants will not gel any legal rights. In the circumstances, the Additional Collector has rightly held that the sale was in contravention of the provisions of Section 165 (7-B) of the Code and is void. Mutation effected on the basis of sale was set aside and the land was directed to be recorded in the name of the respondent No. 1.
6. So far as the question of invoking suo motu power in revision by the Additional Collector under Section 50 of the Code is concerned, in our opinion, this power has rightly been exercised by the Additional Collector. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Murari Lal and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors., (1994 MPLJ 378) has held in para 10 that :--
"It has been, in the last, argued for the petitioners that though no time limit has been prescribed for exercising suo motu powers of revision, yet they should be exercised within a reasonable time. For the said preposition in State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghu Natha (AIR 1969 SC at page 1297), has been cited for the petitioners. In this regard, it has to be seen that it is a cardinal principle of law of limitation that prescribed period (if any) of limitation starts running from the date of acquiring the knowledge of the relevant fact giving rise to the cause of action. In the present case, the relevant lands were recorded in the name of a deity. The Collector started proceedings as soon as the fact of alleged mutation in the names of the petitioners were brought to his notice. Taking action "within a reasonable time" is a relative term. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, action was taken within a reasonable time."
What would be the reasonable time would depend upon the facts of each particular case. In the present case as soon as this fact was brought into his notice, the Additional Collector has rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Code to set aside the mutation based on a transaction contrary to the provisions of Section 165 (7-B) of the Code. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction was exercised beyond reasonable time. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn our attention to the amendment in Section 158 (3) of the Code, which was inserted by the Amendment Act No. 17 of 1992 on 28-10-1992 which reads as under :--
"Section 158 (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, 1923, from the date of such commencement, and
(ii) to whom land is allotted in Bhumiswami rights by the State Government or the Collector or the Allotment Officer after the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1952, from the date of such allotment, shall be deemed to be a Bhumiswarni in respect of such land and shall be subject to all the rights and liabilities conferred 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."
This provision was enacted on 28-10-1992, much after the transaction of sale in this case. Though it provides that after expiry of a period of ten years, the land may be transferred, but it is also subject to the prohibition of Section 165 (7-B) of the Code. So until and unless such a permission is granted by the Collector with cogent reasons, the sale is not permissible. The above said enactment has been made to restrict the transfer of the land which has been granted on lease by the State Government to landless person and such person cannot be deprived of the land by any transfer except as permissible under Section 165 (7-B) of the Code and gives jurisdiction to the Collector to consider such a prayer only after a period of ten years and not before that.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of any substance and is dismissed.