SUKARA BAI Vs. MAKHAN GIR MAHANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. In this intra-Court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 11-11-2011 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3233/2002.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of the appeal, briefly stated, are that one Shivlal who was predecessor-in-title of the appellant and was a member belonging to scheduled tribe was the owner of the land in question. He applied for grant of permission under section 165(6) of M.P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') to alienate the land to Anokhi Bai for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. The said permission was granted on 13-1-1966. In pursuance of aforesaid permission dated 13-1-1966, Shivlal executed the sale deed in favour of Anokhi Bai. Thereafter, on 25-8-1977 Late Shivlal made an application to Sub Divisional Officer for restoration of possession of land on the ground that sale deed was executed by way of security towards repayment of loan of Rs. 2500/-. Eventually, the matter was remitted by the Commissioner to the Collector by order dated 28-7-1988 for a decision in accordance with law. The Collector, in turn, by order dated 28-10-1989 remitted the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 22-6-1993 allowed the application preferred by the appellant and held that the transaction in question was a loan transaction. The aforesaid order was affirmed in appeal by the Collector as well as by the Commissioner dated 19-7-1999 and 23-4-2002. Being aggrieved, the respondents No. 1 to 8 filed writ petition, namely, W.P. No. 3233/2002 before this Court which was allowed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 11-11-2011. In the aforesaid factual backdrop the appellant has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant while inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph 14 of the impugned order has submitted that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in placing burden of proof on the appellant that the permission to alienate the land was obtained validly. In this connection our attention has been invited to provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 170-B of the Code. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge grossly erred in passing impugned directions contained in paragraph 15 of the impugned order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the order passed by learned Single Judge.