MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 20-7-2009 passed by Collector, Mandsaur in Case No. 40/Appeal/08-09, whereby order dated 15-4-2009 passed by SIX), Sitamau in Case No. 12/B121/08-09, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Sections 5 and 6 of Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ko Udhar Dene Walo Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (which shall be referred hereinafter as "an Act") was dismissed, was maintained, present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that on 7-8-2008, petitioner filed an application before the respondent No. 2 under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act alleging that the petitioner is owner of the land bearing survey Nos. 351,352,442 situated at Village Mundla Fauzi, Tehsil Sitamau, Distt. Mandsaur. It was alleged that, since the petitioner was in need of money, therefore, against the loan transaction of RS.75,000.00 the sale deed was got executed from the petitioner by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 6-7-2006. It was alleged that in fact it was only RS.18,(X)0.00, which was received by the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner is cobbler by caste and is also from below poverty line. It was prayed that the application filed by the petitioner be allowed and the sale deed dated 6-7-2006 be quashed. The application was contested by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on various grounds including on the ground that it was out and out sale and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the bonafide purchasers and has paid full consideration of RS.75,000.00. It was alleged that, since no other document was executed at the time of execution of sale deed, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner be dismissed. After hearing the parties at length by the impugned order SDO, Sitamau dismissed the application, against which an appeal was filed, which was also dismissed, hence this petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that a satisfaction has to be drawn by the Competent Authority about the genuineness of the transaction. It is submitted that in a summary enquiry, it is not necessary in every case to record evidence. It is submitted that after drawing the satisfaction, Competent Authority dismissed the application, which has been maintained in appeal, hence the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petition be dismissed.