Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): The Supreme Court, dismissing MP Government’s appeal, said that there is no bar on tribal land sale outside notified area and additional collector (ADM) had full authority.
The SC also slammed the state government for misreading the law. In the matter of Ratlam, Dinesh Kumar (non-tribal) had purchased land from tribal people in 2017 and for it permission was needed from competent authority. Kailash Bundela was ADM in Ratlam at that time.
Delivering the verdict in The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Dinesh Kumar & Ors (Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 10111 of 2024), a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran ruled, ‘We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and therefore, the appeal is dismissed.’
MP government had appealed on ground that only Collector has competent authority and not any officer less then the collector. The case is of 2017.
However, MP government last made ruling that under 165 MP Land Revenue Code, the collector is the competent authority, according to additional advocate general Harneet Ruprah.
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, while upholding a land sale executed by tribal landowners to a private buyer with prior approval from the Additional Collector.
The apex court slammed the government for misusing revisional powers and held that the entire exercise of suo motu interference was based on a flawed and erroneous interpretation of the law.
The Court found that the land was not located in a government-notified Scheduled Area and thus did not fall under the absolute prohibition of Section 165(6)(i) of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 and that the sale, enabled under Section 165(6)(ii) had received valid permission in writing. Madhya Pradesh government’s main contention was that the Additional Collector (ADM) had no jurisdiction to grant permission for the tribal land sale. But the Supreme Court shredded this argument by pointing to the very government order that conferred such powers to the officer months before the sale.
The bench pointed out that the Collector’s own order dated May 19, 2017 specifically listed the concerned Additional Collector as being empowered to act under the Land Revenue Code. ‘If you authorised him by name, you cannot later disown that authority,’ the Court essentially told the State.
Additional Advocate General Harmeet Ruprah informed Free Press, ‘It is case of Ratlam and ADM has given permission for it. The Collector later on approached the divisional commission for revision. At that, the ADM had power. But in 2022, the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh government had given ruling that only Collector has authority under 165 MP Land Revenue Code. We had taken the same ground in appeal in SC.’
