Skip to main content

Followers

12. State of M.P. (Appellant) Vs Babulal (Responded)

Sub: This case relates to Section 165 of the MP Land Revenue Code

Facts of the case: -

1. Defendant No.1 Babulal who belonged to a non- tribal caste in District Jhabua of MP, filed a declaratory suit before the Civil Judge, Class II for recording of his name as land owner over the land of Account No. 04 and Survey No. 12224 and 354 which exists in the village of Amlipada, Tahsil Jhabua.

2. Defendant No. 2 Baghia, who belonged to Bheel (tribe) and was the actual owner of the land, did not file any objection before the Court.

3. Therefore, Babulal (Defendant No. 1) and Baghia (Defen- dant No.2) made a compromise with each other and Baghia transferred his rights of land ownership to Babulal.

4. Actually, in this case, a tribal man had transferred rights of his land to a non-tribal.

5. State, raising an objection over this transfer, filed a suit that the aforesaid proceedings violates the provisions of Section 165 (6) of the MP Land Revenue Code which deals with the rights of the transfer.

6. Section 165 (6) prohibits the transfer of a land by a tribal to a non- tribal

High Court -

Therefore, the Government has stated in its petition before the High Court that the judgment given by the Civil Court is against the law and unlawful because the parties have tried to get an illegal trans- fer recognised by law and this a clear cut infringement of the main provisions of the statute.

The Government has filed an application for issuance of writ of certiorari to annul this judgment. The High Court dismissed the peti- tion of the Government on this ground that the Government should have filed a declaratory suit in the lower court and declined to issue a writ of certiorari.

Supreme Court -

The Government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court, by looking at Sec- tion 165, held that this transfer was unlawful and in this regard, the High Court should have issued a writ of certiorari, because main principle to issue a writ of certiorari against illegal act and error in the judgment.

Judgment- The judgment of the High Court is set aside, the High Court is directed to issue directions for issuane of writ of certiorari to declare the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class II, Jhabua as unlawful. Appeal is allowed.

Law points

1. Section 165 of the MP Land Revenue Code deals with the right of transfer, any transfer made in violation of which will be illegal.

2. If a tribal man wants to transfer his land to a non-tribal, he will have to take prior permission from the Collector.

3. The judgment rendered by the lower Court or any invalid proceedings can be canceled through writ of certiorari.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Important Topics for Semester Exam in Environmental Law useful for LL.B Students.

  1.           State facts and the principles of law laid down in the case of Monera Mandal Sahkari Shakkar Karkhana Society vs M.P. Board of Prevention of Water Pollution, 1993 M.P.L.J.270.   2.            Power to take samples of effluents and procedure to be followed in connection therewith under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 3.            Discuss the various provisions Indian Constitution concerning Environmental Protection. What are the main features of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the provisions of penalties and procedure for violation of provisions, rules, orders and instructions. 4.            Describe the special provisions in the case of supersession of the Central Board or the State Board constituted under the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974. Explain in brief about the provisions regarding appeal and revision under this Act. 5.            Explain the objects and main provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollut
Post a Comment
Read more

1. A. Mackenzie vs. J S Izzak, AIR 1970 SC 1906

Ref : AIR 1970 SC 1906 Sub :- This case is based on Section 2 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Facts of the case :- 1. S.S. Dwarka is a ship whose owner is The British India Stream Navigation Limited and Mackenzie was its agent. 2. Shaikh Ibrahim Hasan was a class II seaman on this ship and who was missing from the ship. 3. It was clear from the medical log book that he had a chest pain on 13 December 1961 and he was suffering from it. 4. It was known from the medical checkup that nothing was unusual and medical officer gave him medicines and con- firmed his recovery and joining back on his duty next day. 5. It was known from the log book of the office on 16 Decem- ber 1961 that he was on the ship that day and he was seen on the bridge at 2:50 in the morning. 6. He was found missing at 6:15 in the morning. The master of the ship informed on the radio message at 7:30 in the morning that a seaman is missing between Khoramsar and Asahar and he is likely to be missing in the river.
Post a Comment
Read more