SATYANARAYAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners have filed the present petition filed under Sec. 227 of Constitution of India against the order dtd. 6/3/2018, passed in CRR No. 4132-2/2013.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the disputed land has been purchased by the petitioners from Respondent No. 4 Deepak by sale deed and thereafter the land was also mutated in favour of the petitioners. There is no violation of Sec. 165 or any other provision of MPLRC Act. However, in the year 2013, the Collector, Indore has issued notice with regard to respondent NO.4. The mutation order has been taken in Suo Motu revision and in this way, the petitioners' title have been extinguished by the respondents. The order was challenged before the Revenue Authorities in Revision under Sec. 50 of MPLRC. The Board has also dismissed the petitioners' petition and affirmed the order of the Collector. It is contended that the said mutation was done in the year 2008, after 10 years it was purchased by the petitioners, Suo Moto revision is time barred. There is limitation of 180 days for Suo Moto revision. The Collector has erred in using the power of Sec. 165(7)(b) MPLRC, as it cannot be used retrospectively. Likewise, the order of Revenue Board is also against law. Hence, the order dtd. 6/3/2018, passed by the Collector, Indore may be set aside and the petition may be allowed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the land in question was purchased by the Respondent No.4 from the Respondent No.3 and thereafter the petitioners purchased the same from the Respondent No.4 and the land in question was mutated in the name of the petitioners in relevant revenue record. It is pertinent hereto mention that the answering respondent No.1 initiated suo moto proceedings under Sec. 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and accordingly issued notices with regard thereto. In the aforesaid proceedings, the respondent No.1 passed an order dtd. 21/06/2013 and directed the respondent No.2 to mutate the name of State of Madhya Pradesh replacing the name of Respondent No.4 in the relevant revenue records. The land in question is a Government land and the same was allotted to the respondent No.3 on lease basis in accordance with terms and conditions that the land or lease was non-transferable. The status of the respondent No.3 is only as a Government Lassee and therefore, he has no right of ownership and titlement on the said land. If in violation of the leasehold terms and conditions, the respondent No. 3, fraudulently showing the leasehold land of his ownership, sold the land in question to anyone, such purchasers do not hold any ownership right or title over the said land on the basis of the same and any mutation in revenue records on such basis is illegal and void ab-initio. Respondent No. 1, after taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case has rightly passed the order dtd. 21/6/2013 and directed the respondent No. 2 to mutate the land in question in the name of the Sate of Madhya Pradesh and learned Revenue Board, Gwalior has rightly passed the order dtd. 6/3/2018 in Revision case No. 4132-2/2013.