Bhumiswami rights granted under Section 162 MPLRC represent full ownership and do not require transfer permission.

The petitioners are recorded Bhumiswami owners of land in Village Bhadurgarh, District Guna, having acquired title through a successive chain of registered sale deeds dating back to the original tenure-holder in 1963–64.

Seeking to transfer the land, they applied for permission under Section 165(7)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), 1959.

Despite reports from the Patwari and Tehsildar confirming the land as private Bhumiswami property with no legal impediments, the Collector rejected the application on 24.08.2020, alleging the land was originally government leasehold property and prior transfers without permission were invalid.

This order was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner (05.10.2021) and the Board of Revenue (27.12.2021).

The petitioners challenged these concurrent findings via Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the land in question is subject to the restrictive provisions of Section 165(7)(b) of the MPLRC, 1959, necessitating prior permission for transfer.

2. Whether the revenue authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by questioning the validity of historical registered sale deeds in a proceeding for seeking transfer permission.

Section 157 establishes Bhumiswami as the sole class of tenure holder.

Section 162 (as it then stood) empowered the Collector to dispose of State land for agricultural purposes specifically in Bhumiswami rights.

Section 165(7-b), inserted in 1980, mandates Collector permission for transfers only if a person holds land as a "Government lessee" and subsequently becomes a Bhumiswami.

The court also relied on the precedent Nanulal Pal v. State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No. 16936 of 2023), which held that revenue entries of "non-transferable" must be deleted if Bhumiswami rights were vested without such statutory riders.

The court found that the land was recorded as Bhumiswami land as early as 1963–64 under Section 162, meaning the original holder (Nathulal) was vested with full ownership rights, not leasehold rights.

Crucially, the court noted that Section 165(7-b) is not a blanket restriction; it applies strictly to former Government lessees who later converted to Bhumiswami status.

Since the State failed to produce evidence that the land was ever held on lease, the invocation of Section 165(7-b) was deemed "wholly misconceived".

The court criticized the authorities for ignoring the Tehsildar's reports and the State’s own grant of land diversion/NOC, which explicitly recognized the petitioners’ ownership.

The court held that revenue officers cannot collaterally challenge the validity of decades-old registered sale deeds in summary permission proceedings.

The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 24.08.2020, 05.10.2021, and 27.12.2021; The respondent authorities were directed to treat the land as free from the restrictions of Section 165(7)(b) of the MPLRC and update records accordingly.