GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD. & ANR. versus ANIL GUPTA AND ORS.

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 02-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012) 9 S.C.R. 974 
GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
ANIL GUPTA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7760 of 2012) 
NOVEMBER 2, 2012 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
MADHYA PRADESH LAND REVENUE CODE, 1959: 
c 
s. 165(1) - Transfer of land by 'Bhumiswami' - Company 
owning a sugar factory was granted pattas of subject land in 
the year 1941-42 - Transfer of a part of the subject land 
challenged in a writ petition under public interest litigation -
Held: The company having acquired the status of a "pucca 
0 
tenant': with the coming into force of the Land Revenue Code, 
became 'Bhumiswami' of the land - Rights of a bhumiswami 
enumerated uls 165 encompass right to transfer - Right to 
transfer being a statutory right and the bar imposed on the 
right to transfer not being applicable to non-agricultural land, 
E a clause in a patta granted in the year 1940-41 cannot restrict 
such a right - Nor is there any material to indicate that under 
terms of the lease granted u/s101 of Tenancy Act and s.39 
of Abolition of Zamindari Act any restriction or bar had been 
imposed on the appellant-Company from making such a 
transfer - Provisions of Urban Ceiling Act and Ceiling on 
F Agricultural Holding Act, ex-facie, do not apply to the case of 
appellant-company - Urban Ceiling Act, 1976 - Madhya 
Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 - Madhya 
Pradesh Zamindar Abolition Act, 1951 - Madhya Bharat Land 
Revenue and Tenancy Act (Samvat, 2007) - s.54(vii) - Public 
G Interest Litigation. 
The appellant-company was, in the year 1941, 
granted 215 bighas of land, under 6 pattas issued by the 
Zamindar for setting up the sugar factory with a 
H 
974 
GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD. & .c\NR. v. ANIL GUPTA 975 
AND ORS. 
prohibition of any kind of agricultural operations thereon. A 
After setting up the sugar factory, the company, due to 
financial reasons sold about 9 bighas of surplus land. A 
writ petition was filed as a public interest litigation 
contending that the surplus land w1ls transferred contrary 
to terms of the patta in connivance and collusion with B 
officials of State Government. The stand of the appellant-
company was that the original pattas of the subject land 
were granted to it by the Zamindar in the year 1941-42; 
that in the year 1950, the status of the appellant in respect 
of the said land was recorded as 'Gair Maurusi;" and that c 
with the coming into force of the Tenancy Act by virtue 
of s.54 (viii) of the Tenancy Act the appellant became a 
"pucca tenant" and on coming into force of the M.P. Land 
Revenue Code, the appellant became 'bhumiswami' with 
a right of transfer u/s165(1) of the Code. The initial stand 0 
of the officials of the State was also that the appellant 
being "pucca tenant" had acquired the status of 
'bhumiswami' and the appellant was exempted from the 
operation of the provisions of Ceiling on Agricultural 
Holding Act by an order dated 8.1.1976. However, in the 
additional return dated 7 .8.2007 filed on behalf of the State E 
the right of the appellant to transfer the land contrary to 
terms of pattas was questioned. The High Court directed 
for demarcation of surplus land of the appellant-company 
under the provisions of both the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 
1976 as well as the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on F 
Agricultural Holding Act, 1960 and held that the excess 
land so demarcated would vest in the Government. The 
company was further restrained from effecting any 
transfer of urban land allotted to it and any transfer made 
were declared null and void. Aggrieved, the company filed G 
the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The rights of a 'bhumiswami' are clearly 
enumerated by s.165 of the MP Land Revenue Code H 
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A which encompasses a right to transfer. The bar imposed 
on the right to transfer does not apply to non-agricultural 
lands and, therefore, would not be relevant to the instant 
case. If the right of transfer has been conferred on the 
appellant by the provisions of a statute and the bar 
B contemplated does not apply to the appellant, then a 
clause or a condition in the original patta granted by the 
Zamindar in the year 1940-41 cannot restrict such a right. 
In any case, there is no specific clause or condition in any 
of the original pattas prohibiting or even restricting the 
C right of the appellant to transfer any part of the land 
allotted to it that may be lying vacant. Neither any material 
has b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.