STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(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 Sec. 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 [The Code of 1959]. The Revisional Order dtd. 14/9/2021, set aside the order of the Additional Collector, Ratlam dtd. 21/3/2018 by which permission under Sec. 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 dtd. 26/3/2018 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 dtd. 18/5/2018 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. Sec. 165 regulated the rights on transfer of the bhumiswami (landlords); to protect and preserve the 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 165 (6) as on the date of the grant of permission and the permission did not consider various aspects as required under sub-sec. (6-c). The grant of permission was not only without jurisdiction but also was vitiated by total non-application of mind.