MULAYAM SINGH Vs. BUDHUWA CHAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(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.