M.P. HOUSING BOARD versus SHIV SHANKAR MANDIL & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 1155 · Decided: 24-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 1155 
'f 
M.P. HOUSING BOARD 
A 
v. 
SHIV SHANKAR MANDIL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3840-3841 of 2001) 
OCTOBER 24, 2008 
B 
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, 
JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code - s.51- Govern-
ment land transferred to respondent for establishing indus- c 
trial unit as per order of Collector- Valid lease deed executed 
- Cancellation of, on the ground that land was reserved for 
grazing - Correctness of - Held: Not correct - Permission 
granted by Housing Board to the Collector to review its order 
of transfer after a period of 3 years was not correct since re-
D 
view power has to be exercised within reasonable time - Re-
view. 
The private respondent filed application before Dis-
trict Industries Centre for a piece of land to establish in-
dustrial unit. The said proposal was forwarded to the E 
Tehsildar with request to transfer Survey No.462 recorded 
as Nazul land. The Tehsildar invited objections. Since no 
objections were received, after consulting the concerned 
authorities, Tehsildar proposed transfer to the Collector. 
The Collector ordered on 27. 7 .1991, transfer of the F 
said land to the District Industries Centre. However Hous-
ing Board objected to the allotment of Survey No.462 on 
' 
the ground that said survey number was in the middle of 
"""' 
residential plan of the Board and prayed for cancellation 
of the allotment of the land and for stopping the work G 
1 
commenced by private respondent. The Collector, by his 
order dt. 27 .8.1991 directed the respondents to maintain 
status quo and further ordered the respondents not to 
construct on the allotted land. 
1155 
H 
1156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 14 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondents filed the first Writ ~Petition. During 
the pendency of the writ petition, on 11.5.1994, the Board 
of Revenue passed an order at the instance of Collector, · 
permitting the Collector to review its order dated 
27.7.1991. Respondents challenged this order by filing 
B another writ petition. The Collector decided to review the 
order dated 27.7.1991 in view of the observation of the 
Board regarding the transfer. The Single Judge gf High 
Court (lllowed both the writ petitions and held that the 
order passed by the Collector, restraining respondents 
C to construct on the leased plot was wholly incorrect. The 
Single Judge also held that the Collector having already 
granted permission on 27.7.1991 could not have decided 
to review that order, that too after 3 years. Two LPAs filed 
thereagainst were dismissed by Division Bench of High 
0 
Court. 
In the instant appeals, it 'was contended for the ap-
pellant-Housing Board that it was a reserved land for the 
grazing and-therefore there was clear bar under s.237 of 
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code from transfer-
E ring the land for the industrial purppses. 
· 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The -land could have 'been leased out as 
it was, undoubtedly, a Nazul land owned by the Govern-
F ment. The respondent had obtained possession, paid 
premium, spent money for obtaining the Registered Sale 
, Deed and also ,mad~ the initial expenditure for preparing 
the land for raising structure.s and yet the Government 
authorities had remained dormant for a good long period 
G for more than 3 years for deciding to exercise their power 
of review. Merely by changing the nomenclature of the 
category of the land which was admittedly sought to be r 
done by the Collector, later on, the said leasehold rights 
H 
of the respondents could not be set at naught. For that, it 
would be necessary to cancel the Lease Deed or to nul-
.
M.P. HOUSING BOARD v. SHIV SHANKAR 
1157 
MANDIL & ORS. 
/ 
_, 
.. 
lify the same through the modality provided by ss.181 (1) 
A 
and 182 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 
and not by the indirect method of changing the category 
of the land. [Paras 8, 11] (1163-B, C; 1164-G, H; 1165-A) 
1.2. It was not specifically· proved that the land in 
. B 
question was carrying any Nistar rights. On the other 
hand, this was specifically admitted to be a "Nazul land". 
That apart, there was no bar in diverting the unoccupied 
land. It was shown that this land was specifically set apart 
for pasture. Barring one revenue entry, the State Govern-
ment has not produced any evidence at any point to sug- c 
gest that this particular piece of land was set apart for 
pasture or for fodder reserve. Under the cirCUl'J!Stances, 
there is no reason to 

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