SUDHIR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to order dtd. 10/11/2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2/Collector Burhanpur District Burhanpur (M.P.) wherein in exercise of suo moto revisional power on the complaint made by private respondent No.4, the Collector has taken away Bhumiswami rights which were conferred on the petitioner vide order dtd. 29/9/2003 and has directed for dispossession from the property in question.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased the property in question from private respondents No.4 to 8 by registered sale deed dtd. 11/11/2024 in respect of land bearing Khasra No.67/2/1 admeasuring 0.87 hectares. Father of private respondents No.4, 6 to 8 namely Soma acquired Bhumiswami rights of the property in question vide order dtd. 29/9/2003. Prior to acquiring Bhumiswami rights, the said Soma was cultivating the land in question for more than 15 years and his name was recorded in the revenue records as a Govt. lessee. After acquiring Bhumiswami rights, name of Soma was recorded in revenue records and after his death, name of his legal representatives i.e. private respondents were recorded. In the meantime, land acquisition proceedings were initiated with respect to some part of the land and consequent thereto compensation was also awarded to the erstwhile land owners. On 11/11/2024, the private respondents transferred the said land to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed and after purchasing the same, the petitioner approached the Tehsildar for mutation of his name in the revenue records. A complaint was made by respondent No.4 that the land in question is a Govt. land and the same is illegally occupied by the petitioner. On receipt of said complaint, the Collector directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to enquire into the matter. The matter was enquired into and a report was filed and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it was observed that the property in question had been alienated in contravention to the provisions of Sec. 165(7-b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and held that provisions of Sec. 182 thereof were not followed. Further, directions were issued to initiate proceedings under Sec. 182 thereof for eviction. The said recommendation made by the Sub-Divisional Officer was placed before the Collector who has given a mechanical sanction to the report, without applying his mind and without considering the reply of the petitioner as well as the fact that the erstwhile land owner has acquired Bhoomiswami rights over the property in question; therefore, the provisions under Sec. 182 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 are not applicable.

(3.) It is argued by petitioner's counsel that the petitioner is bona fide purchaser of the land in question. The exercise by the Collector in terms of revisional power under Sec. 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is beyond the limitation period of 180 days; therefore, the same is hit by the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh (dead) through LRs & anr. vs State of M.P. reported in ILR 2011 M.P. 1. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.