Mrs. Seema vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

1 WP-25490-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 25490 of 2019
CNR No.: MPHC030283482019
MRS. SEEMA AND ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - GA for the respondents/State through VC.
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of the order dated
06.11.2019 (Annexure P-1), passed by the competent revenue authority
while exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims ownership
and possession over the land in question on the basis of documents of title
and successive transfers, which have been filed as Annexures P-2 and P-3.
The petitioner submits that the rights over the disputed land had already been
recognized in favour of his predecessor-in-title, namely, Bhairavlal, and the
subsequent transfers were made on the basis of such rights. The Tahsildar,
Guna, vide report dated 06.07.2016, reported that an area measuring 10
Bigha 10 Biswa was recorded as Government land in the Bandobast records
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 11/6/2026
3:53:10 PM

2 WP-25490-2019
of 1956-57. Thereafter, Survey No.17 was divided into different survey

numbers and portions thereof were recorded in the names of different
persons, including the petitioner. Subsequently, the Collector initiated
proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner, which was duly replied to.
However, without properly considering the reply and the documents
submitted by the petitioner, the Collector passed the impugned order dated
06.11.2019, holding that the land was originally Government land and that
the transfers effected without obtaining permission under Section 165(7-b) of
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Code') were illegal. The Collector further directed that the remaining
land of Survey No.17/2 be declared Government land, except Survey
No.17/2/kha/2, measuring 0.253 hectare, and directed initiation of possession
proceedings and cancellation of mutation entries. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
is without jurisdiction, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. It is
contended that the rights over the disputed land had already accrued in
favour of Bhairavlal in the year 1961 and, therefore, the subsequent
amendments introducing restrictions under Section 165(7-b) of the Code
could not be applied retrospectively. It is further submitted that Section
165(7-b) was inserted by M.P. Act No.15 of 1980 and Section 158(3) was
introduced by the amendment which came into force on 28.10.1992. Both
provisions affect substantive rights and cannot take away rights already
accrued under the unamended provisions of the Code. Learned counsel
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 11/6/2026
3:53:10 PM

3 WP-25490-2019
further submits that the suo motu revisional proceedings were initiated

beyond the permissible period of limitation. Placing reliance upon the Full
Bench judgment of this Court in Ranveer Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 178, it is contended that suo motu revisional
powers under Section 50 of the Code are required to be exercised within 180
days from the date of knowledge of the alleged illegality or irregularity. It is
also contended that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered
and the impugned order has been passed without proper inquiry and in
violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel, therefore,
prays for allowing the petition.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents/State submits that the disputed land was originally Government
land and was allotted for livelihood and agricultural purposes. The original
allottee was not entitled to transfer the land without obtaining prior
permission of the Collector as required under Section 165(7-b) of the
Code. It is further submitted that the subsequent transfers were contrary to
the statutory restrictions and the Collector was justified in exercising suo
motu revisional jurisdiction to protect Government land. It is, therefore,
prayed that the petition be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The controversy involved in the present petition relates to the
applicability of Sections 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the Code and the legality of
exercise of suo motu revisional powers by the revenue authority. This Court
finds that the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 04.03.2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 11/6/2026
3:53:10 PM

4 WP-25490-2019
passed in Writ Appeal No.275/2013, has already considered the applicability

of Sections 158(3) and 165(7-b) of the Code in respect of rights acquired
prior to the introduction of the aforesaid statutory provisions.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.275/2013 vide
order dated 04.03.2024, after considering the relevant statutory provisions
and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and
Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court
2623, Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors reported in 2004 (8) SCC 1;
and K.S. Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala and Ors reported in AIR 1995 SC
1012, has held that the provisions of Section 165(7-b), being in the nature of
restrictions affecting substantive rights, operate prospectively and cannot
take away rights already accrued prior to their introduction. It has further
been held that the subsequent amendment introducing Section 158(3) cannot
retrospectively divest rights already acquired under the unamended
provisions of the Code. In the present case also, the petitioner's specific
contention is that the rights of his predecessor-in-title had been recognized in
the year 1961 and subsequent transfers were effected on the basis of such
rights. The revisional authority, without examining the nature of rights
acquired by the predecessor-in-title under the provisions prevailing at the
relevant time, has applied the restrictions contained in Section 165(7-b) of
the Code. Such an approach is not sustainable in view of the aforesaid
Division Bench judgment.
8. So far as exercise of suo motu revisional powers is concerned, the
Full Bench of this Court in Ranveer Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 11/6/2026
3:53:10 PM

5 WP-25490-2019
(supra) has held that such powers under Section 50 of the Code are required

to be exercised within 180 days from the date of knowledge of the alleged
illegality, impropriety or irregularity. In the present case, the impugned order
does not disclose any finding regarding the date on which the authority
acquired knowledge of the alleged illegality. Thus, the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction without examining the aforesaid aspect is also unsustainable.
9. This Court further finds that the objections and reply submitted by
the petitioner have not been dealt with by the authority by recording cogent
reasons. The impugned order, therefore, also suffers from non-consideration
of relevant material and violation of the principles of natural justice.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the
Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.275/2013, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the
writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.11.2019 (Annexure P-
1) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents shall not take any
coercive action against the petitioner solely on the basis of the impugned
order.
11. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are
confined to the legality of the impugned order and shall not be construed as a
declaration of title in favour of the petitioner in respect of any independent
title dispute requiring adjudication by a competent Civil Court.
12. No order as to costs.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 11/6/2026
3:53:10 PM

6 WP-25490-2019

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 11/6/2026
3:53:10 PM