Holding

The sale deed executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent is null and void, and the High Court's reversal is set aside, restoring the trial court's judgment.

Summary

The appellants were allotted surplus agricultural land by the State of Madhya Pradesh in 1973 under Section 35 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, which conferred Bhumiswami rights. Within two years they purportedly sold the land to the respondent by a deed that the appellants claim was without consideration. The respondent later sought to retain possession, while the appellants invoked Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for reinstatement of a Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed. The trial court and first appellate court held the sale deed to be null and void, but the High Court reversed this decision, stating that the Ceiling Act did not provide for cancellation of such allotments. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Sections 35 and 36 of the Ceiling Act, Section 158(3) and Section 250 of the Land Revenue Code, and concluded that the sale deed was indeed void, the High Court erred, and restored the lower courts' judgment, dismissing the respondent's suit.

Issues considered

Whether a sale deed executed by a Bhumiswami within ten years of allotment under Section 35 of the Ceiling Act is void for lack of consideration under Section 158(3) of the Land Revenue Code.
Whether the State has power to cancel or resume a surplus land allotment made under Section 35 of the Ceiling Act when the land is transferred in contravention of the ten‑year restriction.
Whether the High Court erred in holding that the Ceiling Act provides no provision for cancellation or resumption of such allotments.

Legislation cited

Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960s. 35, s. 36
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959s. 158, s. 250

Subjects

Bhumiswami rightsurplus land allotmentSection 35Section 158Section 250land ceiling legislationnullity of sale deedrestoration of possession

Judgment

[2014] 9 S.C.R.. 435

TOLYA ETC. A
V.
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No. 6471 of 2014)
AUGUST 22, 2014
B
[RANJAN GOGOi AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959 - ss. 158 and 250 -
Bhumiswami - Reinstatement of Bhumiswami improperly
dispossessed - Held: Section 35 makes a provision for C
allotment of surplus land declared under the Ceiling Act after
vesting of the surplus land in the State - State shall allot the
surplus land under "Bhumiswami right" to the persons
mentioned thereunder in the order of priority- Under s. 158(3)
persons have all right to deal with the property but such D
Bhumiswami cannot transfer land so allotted to him within a
period of ten years from the date of lease or allotment - On
facts, surplus land was allotted by the State uls. 35 giving
Bhumiswami right to the appellants in the year 1973 - Within
two years the land was purchased by respondent by sale deed E
- Appellants' case that sale was without consideration and
respondent in connivance with the other persons managed to
keep appellants out of possession - Prima facie, the sale
deed alleged to have been executed by appellants in favour
of the respondent is null and void and the same does not F
confer any right, title or interest in favour of the respondent -
Thus, trial court and first appellate court rightly held that the
sale deed said to have been e.xecuted by appellants in favour
of respondent was null and void and was without consideration
- High Court while setting aside the judgment did not consider G
the provisions contained in the M.P. Revenue Code, thus,
order by the High Court set aside and that of the trial court
restored - M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 -
S. 35.

435 H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A In the year 1973, the State allotted surplus land to the
appellant u/s. 35 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Lands
Holdings Act, 1960 giving Bhumiswami Right. Two years
later, the appellants sold the said land by sale deed dated
4.7.1975 in favour of respondent No.2. Thereafter, in the
B year 1979 on a complaint, the Collector proceeded to
revise the allotment. The respondent filed a revision and
the allotment of land in favour of the appellants and
subsequent transfer to respondent No.2 was upheld. It
was appellant's case that he was illegally dispossessed
c of the land. Proceedings were initiated under Section 250
of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 for restoration of the
property in favour of the appellants and notice was also
issued to the respondent to hand over the land to the
appellants. The respondent filed suits for declaration of
ownership in respect of the said property. and the same
0
was dismissed. Appeal thereagainst was also dismissed.
The respondent then filed Second Appeal before the High
Court which was allowed and the judgment and orders
passed by the trial court and the appellate court were set
aside. Hence the instant appeal.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HE!-D: 1.1. From a bare reading of Section 35 of the
M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, it is
F manifestly clear that Section 35 makes a provision for
allotment of surplus land declared under the Ceiling Act
after vesting ·of the surplus land in the State. According to
th~s provisi6n, the State shall allot the surplus land under
"Bhumiswami right" to the persons mentioned thereunder
G in the order of priority. First, the surplus land shall be
allotted to agricultural labourers belonging to SC & ST
and, thereafter, to other persons. "Bhumiswami Right" has
not been defined in the Ceiling Act, 1960. Section 158 of
the M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959 defines classes of
tenure and Bhumiswami. Sub-section (3) of Section 158
H
TOLYA ETC. v. STATE OF M.P. 437

clearly provides that land allotted by the State to any A
person giving 'Bhumiswami right' shall have all right to
deal with the property. However, proviso mandates that
such Bhumiswami shall not transfer land so allotted to him
within a period of ten years from the date of lease or
allotment. [Para 12, 13) [442-G-H; 444-D-E] B

1.2. In the instant case, the land, which was declared
surplus land, was allotted by the State in purported
exercise of power under Section 35 of the said Act giving
Bhumiswami right to the appellants. The said allotment C
was made in the year 1973. Within two years from the date
of the said allotment, the land was purchased by the
respondent by sale deed which, according to the
appellants, was without consideration and the
respondent in connivance with the other persons
managed to keep th~ appellants out of possession. Prima D
facie, therefore, the sale deed alleged to have been
executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent
is null and void and the same does not confer ·any right,
title or interest in favour of the respondent. The trial court
and the first appellate court, therefore, correctly recorded E
a finding that the sale deed, said to have been executed
by ,the appellants in favour of the ·respondent, is null and
void and is without consideration. The High Court while
reversing the judgment did not consider the provisions
contained in the M.P. Revenue Code. Therefore, the F
judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside
and the judgment of the trial court is restored.
Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent is
dismissed. [Para 15, 16) [445-E-H ; 446-A-B]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6471 of 2014.

From the Judgment and Order 05.08.2004 passed by the
High Court of. Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Second
Appeal No. 165-166 of 1999. H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Appellant.

Ashok K. Srivastava for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the
order dated 5.8.2004 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Bench at Indore, in Second Appeal No.165-166 of
1999, whereby the Second Appeal was allowed, the judgment
and order passed by the Courts below have been set aside.
c 2. The facts of the case, which are common, lie in a narrow
compass.

3. The land in dispute is an agricultural land, originally
owned by Jagannath Singh. In a land ceiling proceedings
D initiated against Jagannath Singh, under M.P. Ceiling on
Agricultural Land Holdings Act, 1960, land in question was
declared as surplus land. Consequently, it vested in the State
Government, who in turn allotted the land to the defendant-
appellants some times in the year 1973, under the Bhumiswami
E Right, purported to be under Section 35 of the said Act.

4. The appellants sold the said land allotted to them by sale
deed dated 4.7.1975 in favour of respondent No.2. It appears
that sometime.s in the year .1979 on a complaint, the Collector
F Shajapur, proceeded to revise the allotment and action was
contemplated to re-allot the land according to the Rules. The
respondent filed a revision against the decision of the Collector
before the Board of Revenue, where the allotment of land in
favour of the appellants and subsequent transfer to respondent
G No.2 was upheld.

5. It further appears from the record that proceedings
under Section 250 of the Land Reve~~e 'Code, 1959 was
initiated for restoration of the property in favour of Jhe appellants,
who was illegally dispossessed and a notice to that effect was
1
H issued to the respondent for directing him to hand over the land
TOLYA ETC. v. STATE OF M.P. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 439

to the appellants, failing which the allotment shall be cancelled. A
The respondent then moved the Civil Court by filing suits for
declaration of ownership in respect of the said property which
was dismissed by judgment dated 19.11.1998.

6. Appeal filed by the respondent against the said B
judgment was stood dismissed on 17.3.1999. The respondent
then filed Second Appeal before the High Court which was
eventually allowed in terms of judgment and order dated
5.8.2004 and the Judgment and Orders passed by the trial court
and the appellate court were set aside.
c
7. The High Court while reversing the judgment of the trial
court as also the appellate court has taken the view that the land
was allotted to the appellants under Section 35 of the M.P.
Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short "Ceiling
Act of 1960") and there is no p'rovision under the Act for D
resumption of land in case such land is allotted to any person
not entitled to such allotment. The High Court also proceeded
on the basis that neither the State nor any Revenue officer has
taken any proceeding for cancellation of allotment in favour of
the appellants. On the contrary, the Board of Revenue has E
allowed the revision filed by the respondent and has upheld the
allotment and directed not to proceed for resumption of land
since the premium has already been paid. The High Court
further held that the Ceiling Act does not provide for
cancellation of patta of surplus land under Section ·35 or for F
resumption of land of the State in case the land had been
allotted to any person not entitled to such allotment. On these
legal provisions, the High Court held that the judgment passed
by the trial court and the appellate court are contrary to law.

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the G
parties.

9. We have perused the impugned order passed by the
High Court. Prima facie we are of the view that the High Court
has not correctly appreciated the law in this regard. H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 9 S.C.R.

A 10. Before we consider the contention made by the
counsel appearing for the parties, v;e would like to refer
Sections 35 and 36 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings
Act, 1960. The said section reads as under:

"Section 35 -Allotment of surplus landvesting in the
B
State Government underthis Act-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act andthe rules framed
thereunder surplus land vesting in the State under section
12 shall beallotted in Bhumiswami rights to the
c personsmentioned hereunder in the order of priority as
indicated therein on payment of a premium equivalent to
the compensationpayable in respect of such land -

(i) agricultural labourers,
D (a) belonging to Scheduled Castes andScheduled
tribes; and

(b) others;

E (ii) joint farming society, the members of which are
agricultural labourers, or landlesspersons whose main
occupation is cultivationor manual labour on land, or a
combination of such persons;

(iii) better farming society, the members ofwhich are
F agricultural labourers, or landlesspersons whose main
occupation is cultivationor manual labour on land, or a
combination of such persons;

(iv) freedom fighters;
G
(v) displaced tenants subject to the provisions of section
202 of the ,MadhyaPradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959
(No. 20 of1959);

(vi) holders holding contiguous land;
H
TOLYA ETC. v. STATE OF M.P. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 441

(vii) joint farming society of agriculturists; A

(viii) better farming society of agriculturists;

(ix) any other co-operative farming societysubject to the
condition that land (includingthe land as owner or tenant
individually bymembers) shall not exceed the area equal 8
tothe number .of members multiplied by the ceiling area;

(x) an agriculturist holding land less than theceiling area :

Provided that unless the State Government otherwise c
directs surplus land consisting of compact area shall be
either reserved for Government farm or allotted to co-
operativesocieties or any other public purpose.

Explanation I --For the purpose of clause (iv),"freedom
fighter" means a person who by reason of his taking part D
in any national movement for independence prior to the
15thAugust, 1947-

(i) had been awarded capital punishment; or
E .
(ii) had to suffer imprisonment or detentionfor a period
exceeding six months; or

(iii) had been permanently incapacitated onaccount of
injuries infected upon his personin firing or lathi charge; or
F
(iv) had to suffer loss of property, whetherwholly or partly
or loss of employment or lossof his means of livelihood,
and includes hisprincipal heir where such person -

(a) was hanged in execution of the capital
punishment; or G

(b) died during the course of imprisonment or
detention.

Explana~ion II --For the purpose of Explanation I, "principal
H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A heir'' means the eldest son of the deceased or, if there is
no son of the deceased or, if there is no son surviving, such
other heir of the deceased, asthe Collector may declare
to be the principalheir.

(2) The premium payable under sub-section (1) may be
B
paid by the allottee either in alump sum within six months
of the commencement of the agricultural year nextfollowing
the date of allotment or in twentyequal instalments, the first
instalment beingpayable on the commencement of the
agricultural year next following the date ofallotment. If the
c premium is paid.in instalments the unpaid balance of such
premium shall carry interest at the rate of 3per centum per
annum with effect from thedate on which the first instalment
falls due.

D (3) Where the land allotted under Sub-section(1) is an
orchard other than banana gardensand vine yards, the
allottee shall maintain theorchard intact.

Section 36 - Recovery of premium in case of transfer
of allotted land:
E
Where land allotted under section 35 is transferred, the
amount of premium remaining unpaid in respect of such
land shall be a first charge thereon and shall berecoverable
from the transferee in the same manner as an arrear of
F land revenue."

11. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is
manifestly clear that Section 35 makes a provision for allotment
of surplus land declared urider the Ceiling Act after vesting of
G the surplus land in the State. According to this provision, the
State shall allot the surplus land under "Bhumiswami right" to
the persons mentioned thereunder in the order of priority. First,
the surplus land shall be allotted to agricultur.al labourers
belonging to SC & ST and, thereafter, to other persons.
H
TOLYA ETC. v. STATE OF M.P. [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 443

12. "Bhumiswami Right" has not been defined in the A
Ceiling Act, 1960. Section 158 of the M.P. Land Revenue
Code 1959 defines classes of tenure and Bhumiswami.
Section 158 reads as under :

158. Bhumiswami - (1) Every person who at thetime of
8
coming into force of this Code, belongs to any of the
following classes shall be called a Bhumiswami and shall
have all the rights and besubject to all the liabilities
conferred or imposedupon a Bhumiswami by or under this
Code, namely -
c
(a)

(b)

(c)
D
(d)

(e)

(3) Every person -
E
(i) Who is holding land in Bhoomiswami right by
virtue of a lease granted to himby the State
Government or the Collector or the Allotment
Officer on or before the commencement of
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue code F
(Amendment) Act, 1992 from the date ofsuch
commencement, and;

(ii) To whom land is allotted in Bhumiswami right
by the State Government or the Collector or G
the Allotment Officer after the
c;.ommencement of the Madhya Pradesh
Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act,
1992 from the date ofslich allotment,

H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A shall be deemed to be a Bhumiswami in
respect of such land and shall be subject toall
the rights and liabilities conferred and
imposed upon a Bhumiswami or under this
Code;
B Provided that no such person shall transfer
such land within a period of ten years from
the date of lease or allotment.

Explanation-In .this Section the expression
c "Ruler" and 'Indian State" shall have the
same meanings as are assigned tothese
expressions in clauses (22) and (15)
respectively by article 366 of the Constitutipn
of India."
D
13. Sub-section (3) of Section 158 clearly provides that
land allotted by the State to any person giving 'Bhumiswami
right' shall have all right to deal with the property. However,
pro"'.iso mandates that such Bhumiswami shall not transfer land
so allotted to him within a period of ten years from the date of
E lease or allotment.

14. Section 250 of the Code is also worth to be quoted
hereunder:

F "250. Reinstatement of Bhumiswami improperly
dispossessed-
(1) Forthe purpose of this Section and Section 250-A,
Bhumiswami shall include occupancy tenant and
Government lessee.
G
(1-a) If a Bhumiswami is dispossessed of theland
otherwise than in due course of law or if any person
unauthorisedly continues in possession of any land of the
Bhumiswami tothe use of such person has ceased to be
H entitled under any provision of this Code, theBhumiswami
TOLYA ETC. v. STATE OF M.P. (M.Y. EQBAL, J.] 445

or his successor in interest apply to the Tehsildar for A
restoration of thepossession -

{a) ................
{b) ............... 8
(2) ..................
(3) ..................
(4) ··················· c
(5) ···················
(6) ...................
(7) ··················· D
(8) ..................
(9) ....................•
15. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, we find that in
the instant case the land, which was declared surplus land, was E
allotted by the State in purported exercise of power under
Section 35 of the said Act giving Bhumiswami right to the
appellants. The said allotment was made in the year 1973.
Within two years from the.date of the· said allotment, the land
was purchased by the respondent by sale deed dated 4.7.1975, F
which, according to the appellants, was without consideration
and the respondent in connivance with the other persons
managed to keep the appellants out of possession. Prima
facie, therefore, the sale deed alleged to have been executed
by the appellants in favour of the respondent on 4.7.1975 is null G
and void and the same does not confer any right, title or interest
in favour of the respondeot-Sattar Khan.

16. The trial court and the first appellate court, therefore,
correctly recorded a finding that the sale deed, said to have
H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R.

A been executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent,
is null and void and is wi_thout consideration. The High Court
while reversing the judgment has not considered these
provisions contained in the M.P. Revenue Code. We, therefore,
allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed
B by the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial court.
Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed.
Appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
''·1

Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.