Chhappuram Jatav vs State of M.P. and Others

Heard on admission. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 31.1.2013 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No. 264/2012.

The appellant preferred an application before the Collector seeking permission to sell the land. The said permission was declined by order dated 3.6.2010. Appellant filed writ petition against the aforesaid order.

Learned senior counsel has advanced two-fold submissions as under:-

(i) The order of Collector is non-speaking which shows total non-application of mind. In absence of reason it runs contrary to The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others, .

(ii) As per section 165 (9-b) of M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), the appellant was not required to seek permission to sell the land because appellant intended to repay the loan/advance taken from financial institution.

Criticizing the order of writ court, learned senior counsel submits that the said court has erred in dismissing the petition. It is submitted that although appellant has another piece of land of his own, it is his choice to decide as to which land he wants to sell. In other words, it is argued that appellant had two pieces of land and out of which he had decided to sell the land in question. Merely because he had another piece of land in his name, permission cannot be declined by the Collector u/s 165 of MPLRC.

We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant at length.

A bare perusal of the order of the Collector, Annexure P-1, dated 30.6.2010 shows that he agreed with the findings of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) Annexure P-2. A bare perusal of SDO''s finding, Annexure P-2, shows that the appellant is owner of another piece of land and is not selling the said piece of land and has decided to seek permission for a different land which he is enjoying on "patta" basis. On the strength of aforesaid, he opined that such permission should not be granted to the appellant. The Collector by agreeing with the said finding rejected the said application.

Since SDO has assigned reasons for his recommendation and the Collector applied his mind and decided to accept the same, it cannot be said that the order of Collector is without there being any reason. The SDO''s recommendation is pregnant with reason and the said recommendation is accepted by the Collector. In the opinion of this Bench, the reasons assigned in the SDO''s finding and accepted by the Collector are plausible reasons and it cannot be said Collector has acted contrary to law. In the opinion of this Court, once a discretion is vested with the Collector, he can exercise that discretion and unless it is shown that such discretion is used contrary to law or on extraneous considerations, no interference from this court is warranted.

As held by Supreme Court in State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another Vs. Sanjeev @ Bittoo, , another view is possible is not a ground for interference even in administrative order. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:-

Administrative action is stated to be referable to broad area of governmental activities in which the repositories of power may exercise every class of statutory function of executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial nature. The scope of judicial review of administrative orders is rather limited. The consideration is limited to the legality of decision-making process and not legality of the order per se. The test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not in the decision itself. Mere possibility of another view cannot be ground for interference.

In the light of aforesaid, the appellant has no vested, legal, statutory or constitutional right to sell his land in any circumstances. Accordingly, we find no illegality in the order of the Collector.

Coming to the second limb of the argument regarding necessity of seeking permission from the Collector, in our opinion clause (9-b) of section 165 of MPLRC has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. On a specific question by the Bench, Shri H.D. Gupta, learned senior counsel fairly admitted that in the application seeking permission to sell the land, appellant had not prayed or assigned the reason that he wants to sell the land to clear dues/advance taken from financial institution/bank. However, he submits that Tahsildar/Revenue Authority''s report shows that there is a standing loan on the head of the appellant. In our opinion, the said finding is of no assistance to the appellant. Appellant has not shown any intention nor had chosen to show in his basic application seeking permission to sell the land that he intends to clear the loan/advance of the bank and in that event no subsequent document is of any assistance to him. Accordingly, on this count also the appellant fails and no interference is warranted. Resultantly, we find no illegality in the order of the writ court. Appeal sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No costs.