BHARAT SINGH Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2008 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Maheshwar, District-West Nimar in case No.10-A/95-99/08 whereby objections raised by the petitioner under Section 47 and 151 of CPC was dismissed, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner wherein it was alleged that vide agreement dated 13/02/1983 petitioner agreed to sale the suit property to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.1,500/- and petitioner paid the earnest money of Rs.400/- In the suit it was alleged that since respondent complied with the terms of agreement, therefore, it was prayed that decree be passed against the petitioner. The suit was contested by the respondent by filing written statement. After framing of issues and recording of evidence the suit was decreed in favour of petitioner. In execution petition filed by the respondent objection was raised by the petitioner that the decree is void as no decree could have been passed keeping in view of Section 165 of M.P.L.R.C. as no permission was obtained by the respondent from the competent authority under Section 165 (6) of M.P.L.R.C. After hearing both the parties, learned Court below dismissed the application against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) SECTION 165 of M P.L.R.C. deals with right of transfer. SECTION 165 (1) empowers the land owner to transfer the land. SECTION 165 (6) (a) of M.P.L.R.C. put a rider to the effect that the right of a Bhumiswami other than a Bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6), in the land excluding the agricultural land shall not be transferred or bo transferable either by way of sale or otherwise or as a consequence of transaction of loan to a person not belonging to aboriginal tribe without the permission of the Collector given for reasons to be recorded in writing. In the matter of Radheshyam Vs. Pema 1984 RN 40 wherein this Court has held that prior permission of Collector is mandatory, without such prior permission sale-deed can not be registered. In the present case, it appears that no permission has been obtained from the Collector which is mandatory requirement of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Court below committed error in passing the impugned order. In view of this, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Court below is set-aside with a liberty to the respondent to obtain the permission from the Competent Authority. It is made clear that if any application is filed by the respondent before Competent Authority, then, the same shall be considered by the Competent Authority after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.