Allotment of bhumiswami rights prior to 1980/1992 amendments excludes statutory restrictions on land transferability.

The State filed a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC against an order dated May 13, 2025.

The original order directed revenue authorities to delete the remark "non-transferable" from the Khasra entries (Column No. 12) for land in Village Laldant, Guna.

The land was originally allotted to the respondent’s predecessor in 1960.

The State contended the allotment was a patta under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007, requiring prior permission for transfer under Sections 158(3) and 165(7-B) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), 1959.

The State also raised grounds of title disputes being outside writ jurisdiction and a 13-year delay in the respondent’s original challenge.

The review petition itself was filed with a 334-day delay.

The court applied Section 162 of the MPLRC (prior to deletion), which allowed the allotment of bhumiswami rights from the inception.

Sections 158(3) and 165(7-B) of the MPLRC, noting they were inserted in 1992 and 1980 respectively and do not operate retrospectively.

The court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and precedents like Board of Control of Cricket India v. Netaji Cricket Club and Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, which limit review to errors apparent on the record.

For condonation of delay, the court relied on Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the principles in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. and State of M.P. v. Ramkumar Choudhary.

The court found the 1960 allotment conferred absolute bhumiswami rights, as the MPLRC had already replaced the Madhya Bharat Act by 1959.

Since the restrictive provisions of Sections 158(3) and 165(7-B) were introduced decades later (1980/1992) and are not retrospective, they cannot apply to a 1960 grant.

The court observed that the "non-transferable" entry was inserted in 2007-08 without any underlying legal order or case number; thus, it was ex facie illegal, and the plea of delay/laches cannot protect an arbitrary entry.

Regarding the review itself, the court determined the State was merely seeking a rehearing of merits, which is impermissible under Order XLVII Rule 1.

The State’s explanation for the 334-day delay in filing the review was deemed "vague" and "sketchy".

The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 4547/2026), observing that the law of limitation applies to the State with full vigour.

The Review Petition was dismissed both on merits and limitation.