The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in the absence of a specific limitation period under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, mutation and ownership records that have attained finality cannot be reopened after decades under the guise of revisional power—especially without conducting a full‐fledged inquiry. The bench of Justice Himanshi Joshi issued this ruling in a case where the petitioners had purchased disputed property via sale deed in 2004 from persons who had earlier been declared “Bhoomiswamis” (landowners). Several years later, respondent no. 4 lodged a complaint in 2016, leading the Collector to initiate suo motu proceedings in 2017. Without a proper inquiry, the Collector issued an order in March 2020 declaring the property to be government land. This decision was challenged and later upheld by the Commissioner in October 2022.
The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed without locus and that respondent no. 4 had no legitimate interest. They also argued that the suo motu revision initiated by the Collector violated law, given that more than the permissible or reasonable delay had transpired. The High Court noted that the Collector, when passing the 2020 order, did not wait for a fresh report from the Sub-Divisional Officer, though one had been requisitioned, but instead relied on a 2016 report which had only opined that the allotment prima facie appeared to be forged, without any conclusive finding.
The Court emphasized that the status of “Bhoomiswami” is a substantive right, not a mere privilege, and cannot be taken away without a full inquiry or a decree from a competent Civil Court. It criticized the authority’s conduct, stating that the irregularity, if any, should have been identified at the time of executing the sale deed or at the time of mutation, but was ignored for nearly two decades. The High Court observed that allowing such belated action by authorities scrutinizing ownership entries decades after mutation and sale—on the basis of complaints possibly driven by grudges—opens the door to chaos and insecurity for landholders.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders of March 3, 2020, and October 21, 2022. The decision underscores that while revisional powers exist, they cannot be exercised arbitrarily after a long lapse of time without a proper inquiry into facts, meaning, ownership entered in revenue records that have stood for decades with mutation and sale cannot lightly be disturbed.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.