Diversion or municipal inclusion alone does not exempt tribal Bhumiswami land from transfer restrictions, MP High Court rules

The petitioner, a member of an aboriginal tribe, entered into an agreement to sell two residential plots to a non-tribal and received earnest money.

He applied for permission under Section 165 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“the Code”).

He challenged the communication dated 26 March 2015 and the consequential order dated 27 April 2015, arguing that permission was unnecessary for residential land within municipal limits.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s tribal status, the transferee’s non-tribal status, and the location of the village within the specified area were undisputed, but that the orders did not determine whether the properties were bhumiswami land governed by the Code or Nazul land.

1. Whether Section 165(6) applies to tribal bhumiswami land merely because it has been diverted to residential use or falls within municipal limits.

2. Whether the impugned refusal could stand without determining the legal character of the subject properties—bhumiswami land governed by the Code or Nazul land.

Section 165(6) of the Code restricts transfer of a bhumiswami’s interest in land to a non-tribal in the notified area; its application turns on the transferor’s tribal status, the land’s location, and the proposed transferee, subject to the land being governed by the Code.

The Division Bench decisions in Sudhakar s/o Baoorao Kadu v. State of M.P. and Ramesh v. Revenue Department establish that the restriction concerns transfer of any interest in land in the notified area and is not displaced merely by diversion to non-agricultural use.

Aildas v. Board of Revenue concerned Nazul land in an urban area and does not establish a blanket exemption for all land within municipal limits; Ramesh distinguished that line of cases on their facts.

The Court treated the municipal-limits observation in M/s Mohbe Infrastructure v. State of M.P. as non-essential to that decision and confined it to the distinct Nazul-land context.

The Court held that diversion to residential use or inclusion within municipal limits does not, by itself, remove bhumiswami land from Section 165(6).

The restriction may not apply where the property is Nazul land or otherwise falls within the distinct category considered in Aildas, but that depends on the land’s legal character, not simply its current use or location.

Although the relevant tribal status, transferee status, and notified-area location were undisputed, neither impugned order made a finding on whether the properties were bhumiswami land or Nazul land.

The authorities therefore could not reject the application on the categorical basis that every tribal-owned land in the specified area was non-transferable.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits and directed completion within three months of communication of a certified copy of the order. The petition was disposed of.