Expanded Authority of Additional Collectors and Limitation on Revisional Powers under the M.P. Land Revenue Code

1. Introduction

This commentary reviews the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dinesh Kumar (2025 INSC 470). The case centers on whether an Additional Collector may validly grant permission for the transfer of land belonging to members of indigenous tribes under Section 165(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“the Code”), and whether a revisional authority may interfere after the statutory period has lapsed.

The primary dispute arose when the Additional Collector granted permission to transfer part of tribal land located in Ratlam District to a private purchaser. The Commissioner subsequently exercised suo motu revisional powers under Section 50 of the Code and set aside that permission. This, in turn, was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which ruled in favor of the land purchaser and the tribal landowners. The State appealed that High Court order to the Supreme Court.

The key issues revolve around (1) whether the Additional Collector was properly authorized to grant permission under Section 165(6), (2) the validity of such permission if due process had been followed, and (3) the potential time limit for the Commissioner to invoke suo motu revisional powers under Section 50 of the Code.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In the final decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s reasoning and dismissed the State’s appeal. The Court concluded:

The Additional Collector possessed valid delegated authority under the Code (supported by a pre-existing work allocation order allowing him to act on behalf of the Collector).
The procedure followed to grant permission for sale of the land complied with statutory requirements, including assessing the market value and assuring that no conversion of use of the land would occur for ten years.
Section 165(6), which prohibits tribal land transfers in scheduled (“notified”) areas, was not applicable because the land in question was outside such scheduled territory.
The Commissioner’s exercise of revisional powers under Section 50 was found to be time-barred and substantively flawed, because it was invoked well after the 180-day period of knowledge, as laid down by the relevant Full Bench precedent of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Thus, the Court upheld the High Court’s view that the suo motu revision order was unsustainable both on the merits and due to limitation.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Judgment discusses a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ranveer Singh (deceased) through L.R.s v. State of M.P., which interpreted Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Though Section 50 itself prescribes certain time limits for filing applications for revision, it did not explicitly provide an upper time limit for the revisional authority’s suo motu exercise of power. The Full Bench decision clarified that the Commissioner’s power cannot remain unfettered indefinitely, concluding that there should be a maximum outer limit of 180 days from the date of knowledge of the impugned order.

This precedent directly influenced the Court’s analysis in the present case, since the Commissioner exercised revisional power much later than 180 days after the Collector first referred the matter. The apex court accepted the High Court’s reliance on this precedent to conclude that the revision was time-barred.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning centered on two central aspects:

Proper Delegation of Authority: The Code’s relevant sections (especially Section 11) permit Additional Collectors to exercise powers of the Collector when so authorized. A specific work-allocation order, dated 19.05.2017, named the Additional Collector and conferred those exact powers. Since this order was effective prior to the date on which the permission was issued (21.03.2018), the Additional Collector operated within his jurisdiction.
Compliance with Section 165(6) Requirements: The Additional Collector’s order granting permission reflected the mandatory considerations, such as verifying the market value, ensuring tribal landowners’ interests were protected, and confirming that the transfer was voluntary and not in a scheduled (notified) tribal area requiring an absolute prohibition. Moreover, Section 165(6-ee) disallows diversion of land use for ten years; this requirement was included as a condition in the permission. Hence, the Supreme Court concluded that these measures satisfied the spirit and letter of the Code’s protective purposes.

Having found that the initial permission was validly granted, the Court reiterated that the Commissioner’s subsequent interference not only contravened the Full Bench ruling on the 180-day limit but also lacked substantive grounds, as the original order complied with all statutory conditions.

3.3 Impact

The Judgment sets a significant precedent for cases concerning tribal land transfers in Madhya Pradesh by clarifying:

An Additional Collector can, when properly empowered, grant permissions under Section 165(6) of the Code, negating any argument that only a Collector can do so.
The 180-day limitation on the suo motu exercise of revisional powers under Section 50 is strictly observed, offering certainty and stability to affected parties.
Detailed scrutiny of statutory compliance, especially regarding the genuineness of transactions and fair market valuation, remains vital in preserving tribal interests and preventing coercive dispossession.

By reinforcing these principles, the Court curbs undue delay and arbitrary cancellations of land transfers that have already received official sanction. Future litigants and revenue officials must ensure strict adherence to the lawful procedure and established deadlines when invoking revisional powers.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Certain legal terms and procedures in this case may appear technical:

Bhumiswami: Under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, a bhumiswami is essentially the owner of the land entitled to cultivate or otherwise use it.
Suo Motu Revision (Section 50): This allows higher revenue officers (such as the Commissioner) to re-examine orders of subordinate officials on their own initiative, without waiting for an aggrieved party to file a formal challenge. However, as clarified by precedents, this power must be exercised within a reasonable time limit.
Scheduled Area: Refers to regions identified as predominantly occupied by tribal communities where special protections apply, including a prohibition or restriction on transferring land from tribal to non-tribal persons.
Limitation Period: The time window during which an authority or individual must initiate a legal action or revise an order. In this context, the Commissioner was held bound by a 180-day period of knowledge.
Market Value and Permission: When an indigenous tribe’s land is transferred in a non-notified area, the revenue officer must ensure the landowners receive fair consideration, and that the transaction is not a disguised or coercive takeover.

5. Conclusion

In The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dinesh Kumar, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle that, where delegation of powers is lawfully conferred, Additional Collectors may exercise authority to approve land transfers for members of indigenous tribes. Such transfers, where not situated in a notified or scheduled tribal area, are permissible under Section 165(6) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, provided that the transaction complies with statutory safeguards.

Equally significant is the Court’s reliance on the Full Bench decision imposing a finite time limit on suo motu revisional actions. The ruling clarifies that a delayed revisional order is void if issued beyond the 180-day period of knowledge. Hence, the case underscores that strict respect for deadlines, procedural due process, and transparent, fair financial transactions are key to preserving tribal rights while enabling voluntary transfer of land under legitimate circumstances.

As a result, the decision provides much-needed certainty: parties can rely on validity when permissions have been granted in full conformity with the Code, and revenue authorities must remain vigilant about time constraints for invoking their revisional jurisdiction. This resolves ambiguities in administrative practice and shapes the future legal landscape for tribal land transfers in Madhya Pradesh.