Additional Collector's Permission Under Section 165(6)(ii) Upheld; State's Appeal Dismissed

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard the appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging a High Court order which had set aside the Revisional Order passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, that had in turn set aside an Additional Collector's permission under Section 165(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The core issue concerned competency to grant permission for transfer of land held by members of indigenous tribes and the validity of the Commissioner’s exercise of suo motu revisional power under Section 50.

The Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the High Court's decision restoring the mutation in favour of the purchaser. The Court held that the Additional Collector was authorised to exercise the Collector’s powers pursuant to a work-allocation order and had properly applied the statutory tests in granting permission under Section 165(6)(ii). The judges noted that the grant contained safeguards — including payment by cheque/RTGS and a prohibition on change of land use for ten years — and that the consideration paid exceeded market value. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "On the above reasoning, we find that the Additional Collector had exercised the power under Section 165 (6) (ii) properly and within his jurisdiction. The consideration leading to the grant of permission also have been dealt with by us; found to be perfectly in order. The exercise of the revisional power under Section 50 of the Code of 1959, according to us was erroneous and on a flawed understanding of the provisions in the Code of 1959. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and therefore, the appeal is dismissed." The Court also recorded that "The decision of the Collector granting or refusing to grant the permission ... shall be final, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code."

Background The dispute arose from an application by respondent landowners (respondent Nos.2–5), members of an indigenous tribe, to sell 4.440 hectares of land to the writ petitioner. The Additional Collector granted permission on 21.03.2018 under Section 165(6)(ii) after considering a Tehsildar/Patwari report on sixteen points, noting that the land was not in a Government‑notified Scheduled Area and that the sale consideration (Rs.45 lakhs) exceeded market valuation (Rs.38,31,720). The permission imposed conditions, including electronic payment of the balance and a ten‑year bar on conversion of land use as required by sub‑section (6‑ee). The Commissioner, exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 50, set aside the Additional Collector’s order; the High Court interfered with the Commissioner’s revisional order and restored the mutation in the purchaser’s name.

The State contended that the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction because only a Collector or higher officer could grant permission, and that sub‑section (6‑c) had not been complied with. The purchaser and vendors contended that Section 11 of the Code included "Collectors (including Additional Collectors)" and that a prior work‑allocation (Annexure R‑1) had empowered the Additional Collector. The High Court accepted that the Additional Collector had been authorised and found the grant valid; it also relied on a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court concerning an outer limit of 180 days for exercise of revisional power, but the Supreme Court upheld the permission on merits and found the revisional exercise under Section 50 to be erroneous.

The Court adjudicated statutory interpretation of Section 165(6) and related sub‑clauses, considered the patwari report and payment safeguards, and concluded that the permission was within jurisdiction and complied with the statutory matrix. The appeal was dismissed and pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 470 Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Deputy Advocate General For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gagan Gupta, Senior Counsel (for respondent No.1); Mr. Anil Kaushik, Senior Counsel (for respondent Nos.2–5)