DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 14/09/2021, passed in Case No.42(0021)/Revision/2020-21 by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain (M.P.) whereby the Commissioner while exercising his suo motu revisional power under Sec. 50 and Sec. 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code of 1959'), has set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Ratlam dtd. 21/03/2018, by which, the permission under Sec. 165(6) of the Code of 1959 for sale of the land of respondents No.2 to 5 was granted and subsequently the registered sale deed was also executed on 26/03/2018.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of Ratlam and had purchased the land bearing survey No.47/8, 47/9, 47/12, 47/14, 47/19 and 47/2 admeasuring 4.440 hectare, situated at village Bhatibhadodia, Tehsil and District Ratlam, through a registered sale deed dtd. 26/3/2018. The aforesaid lands were purchased by the petitioner from respondents No.2 to 5 who belong to aboriginal tribe of the area. The sale deed was executed after taking permission as provided under Sec. 165(6)(a) of the Code of 1959, and subsequently the sale deed has been executed on 26/03/2018, however, the aforesaid matter came to be opened initially by the Collector vide its order passed in the month of October, 2018, observing that there appears to be some lapses on the part of the Additional Collector in following the procedure as provided under Sec. 165(6) of the Code of 1959, and it is also mentioned that no reasons have been assigned for allowing the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, thus, the matter was recommended to the Commissioner to initiate suo motu revision of the matter under Sec. 50(b) of the Code of 1959. Thereafter, before the Commissioner, the matter came up for hearing on 20/11/2018, and after giving notice to the petitioner, the Commissioner has passed the order on 14/09/2020, in which, he has found that the land was sold by respondents No.2 to 5 for a consideration of Rs.45.00 Lakhs, and also observing that on perusal of the record, on the application filed by the respondent no.2 to 5, u/s 5(6), the first order was passed on 26/02/2018 by Tehsildar in which there is no mention of issuing any publication of proclamation, however, the proclamation which has been issued, there appears to be some interpolation in the date, and in the aforesaid order, it was also directed that the report from Patwari be called, and the next date was fixed on 16/03/2018, however, in the next proceeding, there is no date mentioned. It is also found that the Tehsildar and the SDO have not mentioned the date in their proceedings, and thus, the Commissioner concluded that the aforesaid proceeding was erroneous and held that the grant of permission to sell the land could not have been allowed. The Commissioner also found that in their application, the respondents No.2 to 5 mentioned that the land is of no use to them, which does not appear to be correct as the land would still remain in the same village, and in their affidavits, they have mentioned the land to be unirrigated, whereas, as per the report of the Patwari annexed with the record, the land is stated to be irrigated, having a well and tube-well, and thus, came to a conclusion that the applicant had filed a false affidavit. The Commissioner also found that the revenue record also revealed that the plaintiffs are cultivating the land since last many years and there was no reason for them to sell the land, and the Additional Collector has wrongly accepted their application. The commissioner also concluded that there was no justification for respondents No.2 to 5 to sell the land to further develop the remaining land held by them. The Commissioner also found that in the work distribution memo dtd. 19/05/2017, issued by the Collector, the Additional Collector Shri Kailash Bundela was assigned the work in respect of the land revenue, and to exercise the powers of Collector, however, there was no reference of the powers to be exercised by him under Sec. 165(6)(7) of the Code of 1959 for which a specific order is required. Thus, the Commissioner concluded that the powers exercised by the Additional Collector runs contrary to the provisions of Sec. 165(6) of the Code of 1959, and the land has been allowed to be sold in violation of the interest of the aboriginal tribes, hence the land was again directed to be restored to the original status vide order dtd. 21/03/2018. The aforesaid order dtd. 14/09/2021 passed by the Commissioner is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Additional Collector in allowing the respondents No.2 to 5 to sell the land to the petitioner. So far as the power of Additional Collector under the work distribution memo dtd. 19/05/2017 is concerned, counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annx.P/5 page 46, to submit that all the powers of the Collector under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 have been assigned to the Additional Collector. It is submitted that once such a work distribution order is passed, assigning all the powers vested in the Collector under the Land Revenue Code to the Additional Collector, there was no specific requirement to pass a separate order that the provisions of Sec. 165(6) and (7) shall also be exercised by the Additional Collector. Counsel has also submitted that after the aforesaid work distribution memo dtd. 19/05/2017, vide fresh work distribution memo dtd. 19/04/2018, the powers to be exercised under the Land Revenue Code have been reassigned and now powers under Sec. 165(6)(a)(b)(c) have been delegated to the Additional Collector Shri Kailash Bundela. Thus, it is submitted that the Commissioner has erred in holding that the Additional Collector had no power to pass the order under Sec. 165 of the Code of 1959. It is submitted that so far as the adequacy of the consideration is concerned, the petitioner has purchased the land for a consideration of Rs.45.00 Lakhs, and the entire amount has been paid through account payee cheques, thus, it cannot be said that it is a sham transaction as the amount has been received by the respondents No.2 to 5 in their respective bank accounts, and this fact has also not been disputed by the respondents. So far as the land being irrigated or unirrigated is concerned, counsel has submitted that in the application filed by respondents No.2 to 5 under Sec. 165(6) of the Code of 1959, the respondents have clearly stated that the land is irrigated and the reasons assigned for selling the aforesaid land is that they require the money to further develop their remaining land, and also to pay the loan obtained from the market. Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annx.P/2 that even as per the report of the Patwari submitted on 13/03/2018, the Patwari has also mentioned that the land is irrigated and the Additional Collector vide its order dtd. 21/03/2018 (Annx.P/9 page 71) has also mentioned in para 7 that the land is irrigated, and the Collector has also come to a conclusion that respondents No.2 to 5 are getting the value of the property more than the market rate.