LexBABOOLAL SHARDA & ANR. versus SMT. SAVITRIBAI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ ' [2008] 2 S.C.R. 443 BABOOLAL SHARDA & ANR. v. SMT. SAVITRIBAI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1669 of 2002) FEBRUARY 5, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYATAND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] ,.._ Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi A B Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 - ss. 2 and 5 - Land purchased in c court auction - Complaint seeking restoration of the land alleging transfer thereof being in violation of Adhiniyam - Authorities concerned as well as High Court directing restoration - On appeal, held: Adhiniyam is not applicable in the facts of the case - Lands in question had no relation with 0 transaction of loan. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint under Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, stating that the land purchased by the E appellants needed to be restored to her as the transfer thereof to the appellants was in violation of the provisions of the Adhiniyam. Stand of the appellant was that purchases in question were in court auction and hence the Adhiniyam has no application. Authorities concerned F decided the case in favour of respondent No. 1. In writ petition, High Court upheld the view taken by the · authorities. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: A holder of agricultural land who is a party to any transaction of loan subsisting on the appointing date or entered into thereafter can apply to the SDO in the prescribed form and manner for protection and relief 443 G H 444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A under Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ki Krishi Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976~ Undisputedly the purcf)ases made by the appellants were at court auctions. There was no material whatsoever placed before the authorities to B show that the lands in question had any relation to any transaction of loan. On the contrary the court auctions were for non-payment of revenue in respect of the lands. There was no material before the SDO or the Collector or the High Court to show that the appellants had any role c to. play in the court auction or that they were responsible for non-payment of revenue for which court auctions were held. Therefore, the Adhiniyam ~ad no application to the facts of the case and therefore the impugned orders passed by the SDO, the Collector and the High Court 0 cannot be maintained. [Paras 4, 5 and 6] · [449-D, E, F, G; 450-A] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICITON : Civil Appeal No .. 1669 of 2002. From the final Judgment and Order dated 14:11.2600 of E theHigh CouitofMadhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W.P. No. as1of1991~ · · · · A.K .. Chitale, Niraj Sharma for the Appellants. C.D. ·singh·, Merusagar Samantaray, Vairagy~ Vardhan, -F Sunny Chowdhary and Prerna Kumari for the Respondents. ,' The Judgment of the.Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT; J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya G Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants under Article 227 of the Co11stitution of India,. '1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The· appellants had challenged the appellate order passed by the Collector _in exercise of appellate powers conferred by the Madhya Pradesh H Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon .Ke Krishi Bhumi Hadapane BABOOLAL SHARDA & ANR. v. SMT. SAVITRIBAI 445 & ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Pa.ritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, A 1976 (in short the '1976 Adhiniyam'). The original order was I passed by the SDO on 20.11.1990. The complaint was filed by ' respondent No. 1 stating that under Section 5 of theAdhiniyam, the land purchased by the appellants needs to be restored to her as transfer to appellants was in violation of the stipulations B contained in the Adhiniyam. It was alleged that Ram Prasad ... Sharda, father of the appellant No. 1 had grabbed the land and .... after his death the land was in possession of his successor-the appellant No.1. The appellants took the stand that the purchases in question were in court auctions and therefore the Adhiniyam c has no application. The SDO did not find any substance in it. According to him, Section 15 of the Adhiniyam clearly applied to the facts of the case. It was also held that Section 6 is also relevant. The SDO did not accept the stand that the purchase be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.