Additional Collector Assigned Powers Under M. P. Land Revenue Code: Supreme Court Upholds Permission For Sale Of Land Granted By Additional Collector
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the impugned order that interfered with the Revisional Order passed by the Commissioner.
While upholding a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the Revisional Order passed by the Commissioner was set aside, the Supreme Court observed that the Additional Collector rightly exercised power under section (6) (ii) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 in granting permission for the sale of the land.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the impugned order of the Single Judge of the High Court, which interfered with the Revisional Order passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, exercising suo motu powers under Section 50 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said, “On the above reasoning, we find that the Additional Collector had exercised the power under Section 165 (6) (ii) properly and within his jurisdiction. The consideration leading to the grant of permission also have been dealt with by us; found to be perfectly in order.”
DAG Harmeet Singh Ruprah represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Revisional Order passed in the year 2021, set aside the order of the Additional Collector, Ratlam by which permission under Section 165 (6) of the Code of 1959 was granted for sale of the land of respondent Nos.2 to 5 which resulted in execution of a registered sale deed in favour of the Writ Petitioner. The impugned order set aside the Revisional Order and directed that any consequential changes made in the revenue records would stand cancelled. The mutation was restored in the name of the Writ Petitioner. It was in such circumstances that the appeal came to be filed before the Apex Court.
Arguments
It was the case of the Appellant State that the Single Judge erred in interfering with the suo moto order passed by the Commissioner, which was in accordance with the provisions of the Code of 1959. It was the Additional Collector who granted permission under Section 165 (6) (ii) when only the Collector or an officer higher in rank could have granted such permission.
The Cousel for the Respondent pointed out from the Code itself that Section 11, while delineating the various classes of Revenue Officers named ‘Collectors (including Additional Collectors)’. It was further submitted that the Additional Collector was authorized by the Collector to exercise the powers under the Code.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Collector had referred the matter to the Commissioner in October, 2018 and the final order was passed by the Commissioner after almost three years on September 14, 2021 long after the limitation period expired the date of knowledge being at least, the date on which the Collector referred the matter to the Commissioner.
The Bench further observed that Section 11 enumerates various classes of revenue officers, where ‘Collector (including the Additional Collectors)’ is placed, in seriatim, at the third position. “It is also very pertinent that when the permission was granted by the Additional Collector on 21.03.2018, Annexure R/1 dated 19.05.2017; work allocation order was in force which at serial No.2 shows the name of the Additional Collector, who granted the permission, having been thus enabled to exercise powers conferred on the Collector under the Code of 1959. The State, hence, cannot contend for a minute that the Additional Collector was not competent to consider the permission sought for by the landlords”, it said.
Reference was also made to the report of the Patwari dealing with sixteen points, comprehensively covering any apprehension or suspicion regarding the owners of the land, who are members of indigenous tribes, being deprived of their property by an irregular act or an illegal device, which is a sham transaction.
“In this context, we also notice that the revisional power as provided under Section 50 could have been exercised by the Collector himself, which he chose not to do and referred the matter to the Commissioner”, it added.
The Bench held that the Additional Collector had exercised the power under Section 165 (6) (ii) properly. The exercise of the revisional power under Section 50 of the Code of 1959 was held to be erroneous and on a flawed understanding of the provisions in the Code of 1959.
Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the order of the Single Judge, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dinesh Kumar and Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 470)
Appearance:
Appellant: DAG Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advocate Rashmi Singh
Respondent: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, AOR Nikhil Jain, Advocate Saurabh Singh, AOR Rajan K. Chourasia
