Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order, Affirms Validity of Land Sale Permission to Non-Tribal in Madhya Pradesh.


08 April 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, upholding an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had validated a land sale permission granted to a non-tribal individual for purchasing land from tribal landowners. The apex court found that the Additional Collector who granted the permission acted within his jurisdiction and that the Commissioner's suo motu revision of the order was erroneous.

The case involved a land transaction in the Ratlam district of Madhya Pradesh, where tribal landowners (respondent Nos. 2 to 5) sought permission under Section 165 (6) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, to sell a portion of their agricultural land to a non-tribal individual (respondent No. 1). The Additional Collector, Ratlam, granted this permission on March 21, 2018, leading to the execution of a registered sale deed.


 

 

Subsequently, the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, exercising suo motu revisional powers under Section 50 of the Code of 1959, set aside the Additional Collector's order. The Commissioner reasoned that the permission was granted without proper application of mind and consideration of the requirements under Section 165 (6-c) of the Code.

Aggrieved by the Commissioner's order, the non-tribal purchaser filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Commissioner's revisional order and restoring the initial mutation of the land in the purchaser's name. The High Court held that the Commissioner's suo motu powers were exercised beyond the permissible limitation period and that the Additional Collector's order was valid on merits.

The State of Madhya Pradesh then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had erred in interfering with the Commissioner's order. The State contended that the Additional Collector lacked the specific powers under Section 165 (6) at the time of granting permission and had not duly considered the aspects mandated by Section 165 (6-c).

However, the Supreme Court, after examining the provisions of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the relevant documents, found no merit in the State's appeal. The Court highlighted that Section 11 of the Code explicitly includes "Collectors (including Additional Collectors)" as Revenue Officers. Furthermore, the Court noted that a work allocation order dated May 19, 2017, issued by the Collector, authorized the specific Additional Collector who granted the permission to exercise the powers conferred on the Collector under the Code. Therefore, the State's contention that the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction was rejected.

Regarding Section 165 (6), the Court clarified that it governs the transfer of land belonging to members of indigenous tribes. While Clause (i) imposes a blanket prohibition on transfers to non-tribals in notified predominantly tribal areas, Clause (ii) allows such transfers in other areas with the prior written permission of a revenue officer not below the rank of Collector. In this case, it was undisputed that the land in question was not situated in a notified tribal area in Ratlam district.

The Court also scrutinized the Additional Collector's order granting permission, noting that it explicitly referred to the grounds stated by the landowners for the sale (marriage expenses, loan settlement), the report from the Village Patwari, and the undertaking by the purchaser to use the land for agricultural purposes. The Additional Collector had also noted that the sale consideration was significantly higher than the prevailing market value and had imposed a condition prohibiting any change in land use for ten years, as per Section 165 (6-ee) of the Code.

Addressing the State's argument regarding non-compliance with Section 165 (6-c), the Supreme Court pointed out that this sub-section primarily applies to orders under sub-sections (6-a) and (6-b), which deal with specific scenarios not directly applicable in this case. Nevertheless, the Court examined the criteria outlined in Section 165 (6-c) and found that they were adequately considered by the Additional Collector. The land was not in a scheduled area, the permitted use was agricultural, the consideration was adequate, and the transaction was not found to be spurious.

Finally, the Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's finding on the limitation period for suo motu revision, relying on a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which prescribed an upper limit of 180 days for exercising such powers. The Commissioner's order, passed almost three years after the Collector referred the matter, was deemed to be beyond this permissible timeframe.

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court concluded that the Additional Collector had validly exercised his powers under Section 165 (6) (ii), and the Commissioner's suo motu revision was erroneous. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed, upholding the High Court's order that restored the validity of the land sale permission.


MADHYA PRADESH LAND REVENUE CODE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1960