Collector Can't Reopen Land Ownership After Decades Without Inquiry: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that in the absence of a specific limitation period under Section 50 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959, the mutation and ownership records cannot be reopened after decades under the guise of revisional power, that too without conducting any full-fledged enquiry.The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi held; "This Court has no hesitation to say that even if there is no specific limitation period under Section 50 of MPLRC, mutation and ownership entries attained finality, cannot be reopened after decades in the guise of revisional power that too without conducting any full fledged enquiry". The court was hearing a petition challenging the order of March 3, 2020, passed by the Satna Collector & District Magistrate, and the order of October 21, 2022, passed by the Rewa Commissioner. Per the facts, respondents 5 and 6 were allotted the disputed property and were declared Bhoomiswamis. The petitioners purchased the property from the respondents via a sale deed executed on June 16, 2004. However, respondent no 4 filed a complaint on September 7, 2016, allegedly without any locus before Satna's Collector. The Collector initiated suo motu proceedings and, without conducting an inquiry, passed orders on March 3, 2020, deeming the disputed property as government land. The order was challenged before the Rewa Commissioner, who dismissed the same. Counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent no 4 was a blackmailed and had no locus. It was asserted that respondent no 4 filed a false civil suit, which was withdrawn with imposition of ₹15,000. The counsel further argued that the suo motu revision belatedly initiated by the Collector was in violation of the law. Counsel for respondents supporting the impugned orders claimed that this was a case of misappropriation of government land. The court noted that the sale deed of the disputed property was executed in 2004, but the complaint in question was filed in 2016, and the suo motu revision was initiated in 2017, after more than 180 days, which was contrary to the principle settled in the case of Ranveer Singh v State of M.P [2010 (4) MPLJ 178].Taking note of the impugned order of March 2020, the court noted that the Collector sought a fresh report from Majhgawan Sub-Divisional Officer; however, without waiting for the same, proceeded to pass the order based on an earlier report dated December 7, 2016. The report of December 2016 stated that the allotment prima facie seemed forged, but did not provide any conclusive statement. The court noted that the collector himself had not conclusively stated that the allotment was forged, merely emphasizing the issue regarding not obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. Thus, the court held that the collector failed in conducting a full-fledged inquiry before passing the impugned order. The bench observed; "Rather, the instant case is a classic example of failure of functionality of State machinery, as the irregularity, if any, could not be pointed-out while executing the sale-deed and thereafter even while mutating the land in the name of petitioners. Suddenly, after lapse of two decades, upon a complaint filed by someone who might have some personal grudge with the parties, the authority woke up from deep sleep and took suo motu action forcing the petitioners to contemplate eviction from his land".Further, the bench held that the status of Bhoomiswami was a substantial right, not merely a privilege and therefore, cannot be snatched away without conducting full full-fledged enquiry or obtaining a decree from a competent Civil Court. "If the revenue authorities continue to entertain such type of complaints and passing such type of orders without conducting full fledged enquiry, this will definitely give rise to a new chaos. The aggrieved party including State may take the shelter of Civil Court to get their status back, if entitled, but this Court, decades later, cannot promote the process of stripping someone from his ownership on the basis of half-baked investigation and enquiry", the court added. The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of March 3, 2020 and October 21, 2022, were set aside. Case Title: Ramesh Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh [MP-5747-2022]Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 217For Petitioner: Advocate Shubham Manchani For State: Advocate Swatantra Pandey For Respondent no 4: Advocate Paritosh GuptaClick here to read/download the Order

Collector Can't Reopen Land Ownership After Decades Without Inquiry: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags