Entries Recording Land as 'Non-Transferable' Without Statutory Authority or Hearing Are Arbitrary and Liable to Deletion

The petitioners are the legal heirs of Mohan Singh, who was allotted land (Survey No. 96/1, 3.1350 hectares at Village Gader, Guna) in 1961

Revenue records from Samvat 2020 onwards consistently recorded Mohan Singh and subsequently the petitioners as Bhumiswami

The dispute arose when the respondent authorities inserted a computerized entry in Column No. 12 of the Khasra record describing the land as "non-transferable"

The State contended that the land is government property and that the petitioners should seek correction through an alternative remedy under Section 115 of the MPLRC

1. Whether the revenue authorities validly inserted the "non-transferable" entry in the Khasra records without statutory authority or following due process

2. Whether the restrictions on transfer under Section 165(7-B) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code apply retrospectively to land where Bhumiswami rights accrued in 1964

3. Whether the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 115 of the MPLRC bars the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction

Section 158(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), 1959, which deems any person who held land as a Pakka Tenant under the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007, to be a Bhumiswami

Section 165(7-B) of the Code, introduced in 1980, which requires the Collector's permission for land transfers only for specific categories of government lessees who subsequently become Bhumiswamis

Section 62 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act regarding the allotment of unoccupied land and the conferment of Pakka Tenant status

The court reasoned that the land was allotted in 1958 under the Madhya Bharat Act, and the predecessor-in-interest attained the status of a Pakka Tenant upon fulfilling allotment conditions

By virtue of Section 158(1)(b) of the MPLRC 1959, the allottee's status crystallized into Bhumiswami well before the enactment of restrictive amendments

The court found that the restriction in Section 165(7-B) regarding "non-transferability" was inserted in 1980 and does not have retrospective application to rights accrued in 1964

The court determined that since the entry was patently illegal, relegating the petitioners to a subordinate revenue officer under Section 115 would be futile

The Writ Petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondents to delete the "non-transferable" entry from the revenue records and Khasra for Survey No. 96/1 forthwith