The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that land granted as bhumiswami rights from the outset cannot be arbitrarily classified as non-transferable in revenue records merely due to the existence of Section 165(7-b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory restrictions on transfer apply only to those who initially held land as government lessees and later acquired bhumiswami status, not to those who received land directly as bhumiswamis.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, including Ram Kishan Pal, are successors-in-interest to Mansukh, who was granted a Patta for Survey No. 22/2018, ad-measuring 3.3440 hectares, by the Tahsildar on 10.12.1960. The revenue records later recorded this land as 'non-transferable' in Column No. 12 of the Khasra, without any specific order or statutory justification. The petitioners challenged this entry as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
Key Facts
- The land was granted to Mansukh on 10.12.1960 by the Tahsildar under the provisions of Section 162 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, as it existed prior to its deletion
- The grant was made in bhumiswami rights, not as a government lessee
- The land was not classified under any of the categories listed in Section 162(2) of the Code, which enumerate non-transferable land
- Section 165(7-b), inserted by M.P. Act 15 of 1975 with effect from 30.10.1968, imposes transfer restrictions only on persons who initially held land as government lessees and subsequently became bhumiswamis
- No order was passed by any competent authority under the Code to classify this land as non-transferable
- The entry of 'non-transferable' was made without any recorded reason or legal basis
- The petitioners sought deletion of the 'non-transferable' entry from Column No. 12 of the Khasra
Procedural History
- 10.12.1960: Patta granted to Mansukh by Tahsildar in bhumiswami rights
- 30.10.1968: Section 165(7-b) inserted into the Code
- Date unknown: Revenue records updated to mark land as 'non-transferable' in Column No. 12
- 2023: Writ Petition No. 15273 of 2023 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior
- 01.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
- Argued that the land was granted directly as bhumiswami rights under Section 162, and therefore Section 165(7-b) does not apply
- Contended that the 'non-transferable' entry is without legal authority and violates the principle of legitimate expectation
- Relied on the precedent in Nanulal Pal v. State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No. 16936 of 2023, decided on 13.05.2025)
- Asserted that the entry is arbitrary and ex facie without jurisdiction
For the Respondent State
- Argued that the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code for correction of revenue records
- Contended that the revenue authorities have discretion to mark land as non-transferable based on administrative records
- Did not dispute the nature of the original grant but sought dismissal on grounds of alternative remedy
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought deletion of the word 'non-transferable' from Column No. 12 of the Khasra for Survey No. 22/2018 and a direction to the revenue authorities to rectify the record accordingly.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 165(7-b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, applies to restrict the transfer of land that was granted directly as bhumiswami rights from inception, or whether such restriction is valid only where the grantee initially held the land as a government lessee and later acquired bhumiswami status.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Nanulal Pal v. State of M.P. & Others to argue that Section 165(7-b) imposes transfer restrictions only on those who were initially government lessees and subsequently became bhumiswamis. They emphasized that Mansukh received the land directly as a bhumiswami under Section 162, and therefore the restriction under Section 165(7-b) never attached. They further contended that the 'non-transferable' entry was made without any statutory order or recorded reason, rendering it arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 115 of the Code, which permits correction of erroneous entries in revenue records by superior revenue authorities. It argued that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where such remedies exist. However, the State did not dispute the nature of the original grant or provide any legal basis for the 'non-transferable' entry.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of Section 162 and Section 165(7-b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It observed that Section 162, as it stood at the time of the grant in 1960, permitted the Collector or Tahsildar to dispose of government land for agricultural purposes in bhumiswami rights. The grant to Mansukh was made by a Tahsildar, and the record clearly indicated that the land was granted in bhumiswami rights.
"Thus, when prior to insertion of Section 165(7-b) of the Code, there was no rider, also after the insertion of Section 165(7-b) of the Code, the bhumiswami like Mansukh was not required to seek permission from the State Government to transfer such land, then, the question of the land being 'non-transferable' since the land in question is a Patta land did not arise."
The Court emphasized that Section 165(7-b) was designed to regulate transfers by persons who transitioned from lessee status to bhumiswami status, not those who acquired bhumiswami rights directly. The language of the provision is explicit: it applies only to "a person who holds land from the State Government... as a Government lessee and who subsequently becomes bhumiswami." Since Mansukh never held the land as a lessee, the restriction under Section 165(7-b) was inapplicable.
The Court further held that the entry of 'non-transferable' in the revenue records was not supported by any order, notification, or statutory provision. The absence of any legal basis rendered the entry arbitrary and violative of the rule of law. The Court rejected the State’s reliance on Section 115 as an alternative remedy, noting that where an action is ex facie without jurisdiction or arbitrary, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed the respondent authorities to delete the entry of the word "non-transferable" from Column No. 12 of the Khasra for Survey No. 22/2018. The correction was to be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No monetary relief was sought or granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bhumiswami Rights Are Not Subject to Section 165(7-b) Restrictions
- Practitioners must distinguish between land granted directly as bhumiswami rights and land granted as lessee rights later converted to bhumiswami status
- Revenue records cannot be altered to impose transfer restrictions unless grounded in a specific statutory provision or order
- Any attempt to mark land as non-transferable without legal basis is void and subject to writ jurisdiction
Writ Jurisdiction Remains Available Despite Alternative Remedies
-
The existence of a remedy under Section 115 of the Land Revenue Code does not bar Article 226 jurisdiction when the impugned action is arbitrary or without authority
-
Courts will intervene where revenue entries are made without reason, record, or statutory backing
-
This judgment reinforces that procedural irregularities in revenue records affecting property rights are justiciable through writ petitions
-
Practitioners should cite Nanulal Pal v. State of M.P. and this judgment when challenging arbitrary 'non-transferable' entries in revenue records
-
Always verify the original mode of grant (bhumiswami vs. lessee) before contesting transfer restrictions
-
File writ petitions promptly where revenue records are altered without notice or legal justification
