Dharmendra Jatav Vs. State of M.P., and others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 15591 of 2020, Judgment Date: Jan 19, 2021

Law laid down:- 

(1) The offending sale was made vide registered sale deed dated 01/03/1994. The lease was originally granted to Kishanlal in the year 1966-67 after coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') and after his death, the name of his heir Narayan Jatav was entered by way of succession vide entry No.40/93-94 on 30/12/1993. Bhumiswami right was recorded on 10/01/1994 in favour of Narayan Jatav the father of the present petitioner. The bar or prohibition as contained under sub-section 7(b) of section 165 of the Code is with reference to the date of transfer and not the date of grant of patta.

(2) Since the ownership of land covered under the Code vests in the State Government, the revenue authorities under the Code have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters enlisted in section 257 of the Code and cancellation or omitting the entry with due notice to the other side upon acquisition of knowledge of void transaction; in violation of section 165(7b) of the Code.

(3) A transaction from its very inception being in violation of law is a nullity and, therefore, void ab initio. A declaration in that behalf is not required by a Court of law; whereas in contrast, a transaction which otherwise is good act in the eyes of law, unless; avoided is a voidable act, i.e., if a suit is filed for a declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or forged and fabricated and a party who alleges so is obliged to prove it; seeking a declaration in that behalf in a Court of law. In other words, where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be void but would obviously be voidable.

(4) A void transaction is bad in law from its very inception. No declaration to that effect is required. Therefore, the question of limitation does not arise in that behalf.

(5) Section 257(1)(f) of the Code cannot be construed providing for substitution of name in revenue record arising out of inter se competitive claims of two parties over a entry / claim viz., instead it applies to cancellation / omission of entry upon acquisition of knowledge of the offending sale in violation of section 165(7b) of the Code.

(6) Section 111 of the Code provides jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide the dispute inter se between two parties relating to right of records, where the State Government is not a party. Correction of record due to void transaction is not competitive claim of two rival parties.

(7) A landless person extended the benefit of grant of lease / patta by the State Government or the Collector loses his status as such, in the event he transfers the land in violation of section 165(7b) of the Code. Therefore, on the analogy of section 111(g)(2) of the Transfer of Property Act, such person becomes liable for initiation of action for determination of lease by forfeiture through notice by the lesser/State Government and the subject matter of sale of land is liable for restoration to the State Government with correction of entry and taking over the possession by due process of law.

Dharmendra Jatav Vs. State of M.P., and others