The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dinesh Kumar

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No……….. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10111 of 2024)

The State of Madhya Pradesh. ...Appellant Versus

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. ...Respondent(s)

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is

against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge

of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore which

interfered with the Revisional Order passed by the

Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, exercising suo

motu powers under Section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.04.08 17:43:23 IST Reason: Page 1 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 Code, 19591. The Revisional Order dated 14.09.2021, set

aside the order of the Additional Collector, Ratlam dated

21.03.2018 by which permission under Section 165 (6) of

the Code of 1959 was granted for sale of the land of

respondent Nos.2 to 5 which resulted in execution of a

registered sale deed dated 26.03.2018 in favour of the

Writ Petitioner. The impugned order set aside the

Revisional Order and directed that any consequential

changes made in the revenue records would stand

cancelled; restoring the mutation dated 18.05.2018 in the

name of the Writ Petitioner.

3. Mr.Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Deputy Advocate

General appearing for the appellant-State, argued that

the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the suo

moto order passed by the Commissioner, which was in

accordance with the provisions of the Code of 1959.

Section 165 regulated the rights on transfer of the

bhumiswami (landlords); to protect and preserve the

1 The Code of 1959

Page 2 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 lands of Tribals who could be easily induced to alienate

it without being aware of the consequences. In the

present case, it was the Additional Collector who

granted permission under Section 165 (6) (ii) when only

the Collector or an officer higher in rank could have

granted such permission. It is pointed out that the

Additional Collector was not allocated the specific

powers under Section 165 (6) as on the date of the grant

of permission and the permission did not consider

various aspects as required under sub-section (6-c). The

grant of permission was not only without jurisdiction but

also was vitiated by total non-application of mind.

4. Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for respondent No.1 in the appeal, who was

the Writ Petitioner, pointed out from the Code of 1959

itself that Section 11 while delineating the various classes

of Revenue Officers named ‘Collectors (including

Additional Collectors)’. It is also pointed out that by

Annexure R-1, produced along with the counter-

Page 3 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 affidavit, the named Additional Collector who granted

permission, was authorized by the Collector to exercise

the powers under the Code of 1959; which order is dated

19.05.2017 prior to the grant of permission. The order

impugned in the Writ Petition is read over to urge that

consideration was on all aspects required under Section

165 (6-c); especially considering the fact that admittedly

the land was not located in the area notified by the State

Government as predominantly inhabited by aboriginal

tribes and the permission being enabled under Clause

(ii) of sub-section of Section 165 (6). The learned Senior

Counsel Mr. Anil Kaushik appearing for respondent Nos.

2 to 5, the original landlords who were the vendors in the

sale deed supported the arguments of learned Senior

Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

5. The High Court in its order found that the exercise

of suo motu powers can be only within 180 days of

knowledge and the revisional order having been passed

after expiry of the period as held in a Full Bench decision

Page 4 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Collector had

referred the matter to the Commissioner in the month of

October, 2018 and the final order was passed by the

Commissioner after almost three years on 14.09.2021

long after the limitation period expired the date of

knowledge being at least, the date on which the

Collector referred the matter to the Commissioner.

6. On merits, it was found that the request made by

the landowners was genuine and they received

consideration more than that of the market value existing

on the date. It was also found, based on the distribution

memo dated 22.11.2016 that the Additional Collector had

been assigned the powers under the Code of 1959. The

discrepancies in the dates of the publication being not

noticed in the proceedings were found to be trivial and

not going to the root of the matter.

7. The Code of 1959 attempted to consolidate and

amend the law relating to land revenue, the powers of

revenue officers, rights and liabilities of holders of land

Page 5 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 from the state government, agricultural tenures and

other matters relating to land and the liabilities

incidental thereto in Madhya Pradesh. Section 11

enumerates various classes of revenue officers, where

‘Collector (including the Additional Collectors)’ is placed,

in seriatim, at the third position. It is also very pertinent

that when the permission was granted by the Additional

Collector on 21.03.2018, Annexure R/1 dated 19.05.2017;

work allocation order was in force which at serial No.2

shows the name of the Additional Collector, who granted

the permission, having been thus enabled to exercise

powers conferred on the Collector under the Code of

1959. The State, hence, cannot contend for a minute that

the Additional Collector was not competent to consider

the permission sought for by the landlords.

8. Section 165 (6) specifically refers to the ‘Rights of

transfer’, obviously of landowners, wherein sub-section

(6) deals with the lands belonging to the members of the

indigenous tribes (referred to in the Statue as

Page 6 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 ‘aboriginal’, in the alternative referred as ‘indigenous’ by

us in this judgment). Sub-section (6) of Section 165 has

two limbs, in clause (i) and clause (ii). Clause (i)

provides a blanket prohibition in so far as the transfer of

lands situated in an area predominantly inhabited by

indigenous tribes, as notified by the Government,

owned by a person belonging to that indigenous tribe,

to persons other than that of the specific indigenous

tribe. This does not apply in the instant case, since

admittedly the land is not situated in a notified area in

Ratlam District as seen from Annexure A-1, produced

along with the counter affidavit of the appellant filed

pursuant to order dated 20.03.2025. In the district of

Ratlam the notification applies only to two Tehsils,

namely Sailan and Bhajna. It is also an admitted position

that respondent Nos.2 to 5, the land owners, who made

the sale, are members of an indigenous tribe, enabled to

transfer the lands in their ownership, situated in areas

not covered by the Government notification as stipulated

Page 7 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 in Clause (i), but only with the prior permission of a

revenue officer not below the rank of Collector; which

permission also has to be recorded in writing.

9. The application filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 is

produced as Annexure A-5 in the counter affidavit of the

State, succinctly stated, respondent Nos.2 to 5 had

ownership over 6.290 hectares of land out of which they

intended to sell 4.440 hectares, for which they had

executed an agreement to sell with respondent No.1 for

that portion of the land which was not in cultivation. The

sale was intended for generating funds for the marriage

of children, settlement of loans; while retaining a portion

of the land which was asserted to be sufficient for their

requirements, the owners also having possession of

lands in other villages. The price offered was also stated

to be far more than the market value.

10. The order of the Additional Collector is produced

as Annexure P-2 in the Writ Petition, wherein he refers to

the various grounds stated in the application and the

Page 8 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 report secured by the Tehsildar from the Village Patwari

on sixteen points to grant the permission sought for. It

was also specifically noticed in the order that the

purchaser, the respondent in the application, had

undertaken that the land will be used for agricultural

purposes. The market value of the land was found to be

Rs.1,75,000/- per bigha, thus putting the total value at

Rs.38,31,720/-; whereas the total consideration paid was

Rs.45 lakhs, far in excess. The permission was granted

mandating that the balance sale consideration should be

paid either by a cheque or through RTGS, stipulating also

that there shall be no conversion of use of the land till

completion of 10 years from the date of transfer; as

provided under sub-section (6-ee) of Section 165 of the

Code of 1959.

11. In this context, we must consider the arguments

raised by the learned counsel for the State that sub-

section (6-c) has not been complied with, which

Page 9 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 consideration requires the above provision to be

extracted, which reads thus: -

“(6-c) The Collector shall in passing an order under sub-section (6-a) granting or refusing to grant permission or under sub-section (6-b) ratifying or refusing to ratify the transaction shall have due regard to the following: -

(i) whether or not the person to whom land is being transferred is a resident of the Scheduled Area;

(ii)the purpose to which land shall be or is likely to be used after the transfer;

(iii)whether the transfer serves, or is likely to serve or prejudice the social, cultural and economic interest of the residents of the Scheduled Area;

(iv)whether the consideration paid is adequate;

(v)whether the transaction is spurious or benami; and

(vi)such other matters as may be prescribed.

The decision of the Collector granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub-section (6-a) or ratifying or refusing to ratify the transaction of transfer under sub-section (6-b), shall be final,

Page 10 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code.

Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section,-

(a)"Scheduled Area" means any area declared to be a Scheduled Area within the State of Madhya Pradesh under paragraph 6 of the Fifth Scheduled to the Constitution of India;

(b)the burden of proving that the transfer was not spurious, fictitious or benami shall lie on the person who claims such transfer to be valid.”

12. We cannot but observe that sub-section (6-c)

applies only to orders under sub-sections (6-a) & (6-b).

However, we would still consider the plea taken, since a

ratification or refusal to ratify under sub-section (6-b)

could apply to sub-section (6), though there is no

ratification made mandatory therein; as is compulsory

under the proviso to sub-section (6-a). Clause (i) and

(iii), as extracted above, is not applicable to the instant

case, since admittedly the land is not located in a

scheduled area. So far as clause (ii) is concerned, sub-

Page 11 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 section (6-ee) prohibits any diversion of use of the land

for a period of 10 years from the date of transfer, which

condition has been prescribed by the Additional

Commissioner in the order granting permission. As far

as clause (iv) is concerned, we have already noticed that

the consideration paid is far more than the market value,

as specifically noticed by the Additional Collector in the

order granting permission. Clause (v) has also been

dealt with, when the Additional Collector found that the

transaction for which the permission is sought cannot be

termed to be sham transaction. We need not dwell upon

clause (vi), since no prescription made or violation of

such a prescription has been argued before us.

13. We already noticed that as per our order dated

20.03.2025, a counter affidavit has been filed wherein the

report of the Patwari, relied on by the Additional

Collector has been produced as Annexure A-4. The

Village Patwari has dealt with sixteen points,

comprehensively covering any apprehension or

Page 12 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 suspicion regarding the owners of the land, who are

members of indigenous tribes, being deprived of their

property by an irregular act or an illegal device, which

is a sham transaction.

14. In so far as the question of limitation, the impugned

order has relied on a Full Bench decision of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Ranveer Singh since dead

through L.R.s v. State of M.P.2. Therein the provision

under Section 50, conferring revisional power on the

Board/ Commissioner/Settlement Commissioner/

Collector or the Settlement Officer was found to have

prescribed a limitation of 60 days to file an application

before the Officers other than the Board of Revenue and

90 days to the Board, from the date of the order sought to

be revised. The Full Bench found that though a limitation

is provided for filing an application, there is no upper

limit provided for exercise of such powers, which

according to the Full Bench, cannot be deemed to have

22 2010 SCC OnLine MP 325

Page 13 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 conferred unfettered right on the revisional authority to

exercise this power at any point of time, on a mere whim

of the authority. After looking at various decisions of this

Court and also the provisions of the Code of 1959, an

upper limit of 180 days was prescribed for exercise of

such powers. We need not dwell upon that controversy

at this point since we have found on merits that the order

is sustainable.

15. In this context, we also notice that the revisional

power as provided under Section 50 could have been

exercised by the Collector himself, which he chose not

to do and referred the matter to the Commissioner.

16. On the above reasoning, we find that the Additional

Collector had exercised the power under Section 165 (6)

(ii) properly and within his jurisdiction. The

consideration leading to the grant of permission also

have been dealt with by us; found to be perfectly in

order. The exercise of the revisional power under

Section 50 of the Code of 1959, according to us was

Page 14 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024 erroneous and on a flawed understanding of the

provisions in the Code of 1959. We find absolutely no

reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single

Judge and therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

17. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

……….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….…………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 08, 2025.

Page 15 of 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.10111 of 2024