SC Upheld Addl Collector's Land Transfer Permission and Restricting Commissioner's Revisional Powers
Supreme Court affirms the Additional Collector's permission for the sale of tribal land, finding the Commissioner's suo motu revision under the MP Land Revenue Code to be invalid due to the Additional Collector's authorized powers and proper application of relevant provisions.
The Supreme Court heard an appeal regarding the validity of a land sale permission that had been issued to members of an aboriginal tribe. The appeal was against the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that had upheld the revisional order of the Commissioner, which in turn had cancelled the permission of the Additional Collector for the transfer of land.
The origin of the controversy is in the Additional Collector, Ratlam, having issued permission on 21.03.2018, under Section 165 (6) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, for sale of land by respondents of an aboriginal tribe. Thereafter, the Commissioner, suo motu under Section 50 of the same Code, reversed the order of the Additional Collector. The High Court thereupon overturned the revisional order of the Commissioner and reinstating the original mutation in the interest of the purchaser. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed before the Supreme Court that the High Court was incorrect to reverse the Commissioner's order.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the order of the High Court. The Apex Court noted that the Additional Collector had the authority to give the permission since a work allocation order dated earlier than the permission had given them the power to act in the place of the Collector under the Code.
The Apex Court also observed that even though Section 165 (6-c) applies technically to other sub-sections, it viewed the aspects therein covered and observed that the Additional Collector had rightly taken into consideration pertinent factors, such as the land not lying in a notified tribal area, the sufficient consideration paid (in excess of market value), and the condition against land-use change for ten years. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Collector had exercised the power under Section 165 (6) (ii) correctly.
The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the suo motu exercise of revisional power by the Commissioner under Section 50 was incorrect and founded on a misconstruction of the provisions of the Code.
Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: 08-04-2025
Comments