The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) has held that a company is a “person” in law and cannot be denied rights under the Land Revenue Code merely because it is a corporate entity. Further, an In-charge Tehsildar is competent to exercise the powers of the office unless there is a specific statutory or administrative restriction, and revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to conclusively decide disputed title to land beyond the scope of the original proceedings.
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the Collector’s 2019 order cancelling Devaswar Trading Private Limited’s rights over Mahalgaon land, and restored the earlier order dated Nov 25, 2010 conferring Bhumiswami rights upon the petitioner and directed that all consequential revenue entries be revived.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke first rejected the State’s objection on delay and laches. It found that the petitioner had not remained inactive, because it had promptly pursued an appeal before the Commissioner after the Collector’s 2019 order and had continued to assert its rights. The Court also took note of the disruption caused by the COVID-19 period and held that, since the dispute involved jurisdictional error and continuing impact on immovable property rights, the matter could not be thrown out on a technical ground of delay.
On merits, the Court found substantial force in the petitioner’s argument that a company is a juristic person and is included within the expression “person” under Section 2(31) of the Madhya Pradesh General Clauses Act. It held that the Collector had wrongly assumed that a company could not cultivate land or acquire rights under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. The Court clarified that a company can act through its directors, employees, agents, or representatives, and therefore cannot be denied statutory rights merely because it is a corporate entity.
The Court also held that the petitioner’s possession had already been recognized by the order dated Jan 23, 2007, and that the Bhumiswami rights granted on Nov 25, 2010 had remained unchallenged for years by the recorded tenure holders or their legal representatives. This meant that rights had accrued in favour of the petitioner and continued to operate unless validly displaced in accordance with law.
Majorly, the Court found that the Collector’s suo motu revisional power under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code had been exercised after a substantial delay, without recording when the alleged illegality came to his knowledge and without assigning any satisfactory explanation for reopening the matter after several years. The Court reiterated that such revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable period, ordinarily within 180 days from the date of knowledge, and that the Collector’s action was contrary to this settled position.
The High Court also found that the Collector had travelled beyond the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction by proceeding to finally declare the land itself as Government land. According to the Court, the revisional proceedings were only meant to examine the legality of the order granting Bhumiswami rights, and not to conclusively adjudicate title. The Court said that the old revenue expression “Mafi Atiya Sarkar” could not by itself conclusively prove Government ownership, especially when the later revenue material reflected the Scindia family’s name and no conclusive vesting material, sanad, transfer instrument, or title adjudication in favour of the State had been placed on record.
The Court also noted that Respondent No. 5, Shivajirao Education Society, itself relied on an alleged 1959 registered deed of gift said to have been executed by the erstwhile ruler, Jiwajirao Scindia. The Court observed that such a plea itself presupposed that the donor had ownership and transferable title, which actually supported the petitioner’s case that the land was personal property of the Scindia family rather than State land. At the same time, the Court made it clear that disputed title claims based on such deed would have to be pursued in independent proceedings before the proper forum.
Briefly, Devaswar Trading Private Limited, formerly known as Dev Fiscal Services Private Limited, filed this writ petition challenging the Collector, Gwalior’s order dated July 26, 2019, which had cancelled the earlier order granting the company Bhumiswami rights over land bearing Survey Nos. 1139 to 1146 at Village Mahalgaon, District Gwalior, measuring 5.225 hectares, and had directed that the land be restored in the name of the Government. The petitioner also sought restoration of its ownership rights and corresponding mutation in the revenue records.
The company’s case was that its possession over the land had earlier been recognized by the competent revenue authority through an order dated Jan 23, 2007, after reports of the Patwari and Revenue Inspector confirmed its possession and no objections were received from interested persons. Thereafter, on Nov 25, 2010, the competent authority declared the petitioner as Bhumiswami under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and directed corresponding entries in the revenue records.
Later, the Collector initiated suo motu revision proceedings on the basis of a third-party complaint and, restored the land as Government land. The Board of Revenue then set aside that order for violation of natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh hearing. After remand, the Collector again passed the impugned order cancelling the petitioner’s rights.
