Bhumiswami rights acquired under Section 162 MPLRC represent full ownership, exempting subsequent transfers from Section 165(7-b) restrictions.

The Petitioner challenged orders dated 24.08.2020, 05.10.2021, and 27.12.2021 passed by the Collector, Commissioner, and Board of Revenue respectively

The Petitioner is the recorded Bhumiswami of land admeasuring 0.418 hectares in Guna, M.P., acquired through a chain of registered sale deeds originating from an allotment to Shivnarayan in 1961

Although revenue records from 1963–64 consistently showed the land as Bhumiswami (private ownership) and the Tehsildar/Patwari reports confirmed no encumbrances, the Collector rejected the Petitioner's application for permission to transfer the land under Section 165(7)(b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), 1959

The rejection was based on an entry in the Jild Bandobast alleging the land was originally government leasehold land, making prior transfers invalid

The Petitioner’s appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue

Sections 157 and 158 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which define Bhumiswami as the single class of tenure holder with full ownership rights

Section 162 (as it stood then) regarding the disposal of State land for agricultural purposes in Bhumiswami rights

Section 165(7-b) of the MPLRC, inserted in 1980, which requires Collector’s permission for transfers only if the holder was originally a "Government lessee" who subsequently became a Bhumiswami

Interpretation following Nanulal Pal v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 16936 of 2023), which held that "non-transferable" entries are invalid where Bhumiswami rights were absolute

the Khatoni entries from 1963–64 established that the original allottee, Shivnarayan, was conferred Bhumiswami rights under Section 162, not leasehold rights

Since Section 165(7-b) was only introduced in 1980, the court held it could not be applied to invalidate transactions or impose restrictions on land where full ownership rights had already crystallized

the provision only applies to those who were specifically "Government lessees" before becoming Bhumiswamis, a status not proven by the State in this case

revenue officers cannot collaterally challenge the validity of registered sale deeds in summary permission proceedings

The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders of the Collector, Commissioner, and Board of Revenue

The court directed the respondent authorities to treat the land as transferable and proceed in accordance with the law without insisting on permissions or conditions not supported by statute