Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sapna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 August, 2021
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
WP No.3597/2021
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur
Bench at Indore
Writ Petition No.3597/2021
(Sapna d/o Late Teju @ Tejmal w/o Mohan
Manju d/o Late Teju @ Tejmal w/o Dinesh
Pinky d/o Late Teju @ Tejmal w/o Dinesh
Teena d/o Late Teju @ Tejmal
Puja d/o Late Teju @ Tejmal
Monica d/o Late Teju @ Tejmal
Soniya d/o Late Teju @ Tejmal
Ravi s/o Late Teju @ Tejmal
Rahul s/o Late Teju @ Tejmal
Aaniya d/o Late Teju @ Tejmal
Petitioners 8 to 10 are minors
Represented through guardian
Petitioner No.4
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Bhopal
Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Ujjain (MP)
Collector, District Ratlam
SDM, Ratlam, District Ratlam
Tehsildar, Ratlam, District Ratlam
& others)
Indore, Dated 10.08.2021
Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri
Yashwardhan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent
/ State of Madhya Pradesh, on advance notice.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties on the question of
admission.
ORDER
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioners against order dated 25.01.2021
(Annexure P/1) passed in an appeal (No.1188/Appeal/2019-20) by
the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain (MP) whereby
order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P/7) passed in Case
No.0028/Appeal/2019-20 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Ratlam Rural, District Ratlam (MP) has been affirmed.
WP No.3597/2021
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are the
owners of land situated at Ratlam (Survey No.626, Raqba 4 Bigha 14
Biswa square feet 1,01,050) regarding which a decree dated
03.12.2001 (Annexure P/2) has already been passed by 3 rd Civil
Judge, Class-II, Ratlam (MP) in favour of the petitioners in Civil
Suit No.308-A/1996; and the First Appeal No.05-A/2003 preferred
by the State Government against the aforesaid decree dated
03.12.2001 has also been dismissed by the lower appellate Court [5 th
Additional District Judge (Fast Trace Court), Ratlam (MP)] on
16.10.2003 (Annexure P/3). Second Appeal No.217/2004 preferred
by the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh against the said
judgment and decree has also been dismissed by this Court on
12.12.2018 (Annexure P/4) on the ground of it being abated. Against
the aforesaid order of dismissal in Second Appeal No.217/2004, the
State also filed an application vide Miscellaneous Civil Case
No.1421/2019 to bring legal heirs of deceased Teju @ Tejmal s/o
Shivaji (who died on 30.03.2017) on record; and for condoning the
delay. However, vide order dated 19.06.2020 (Annexure P/5) the
aforesaid MCC No.1421/2019 also came to be dismissed; and thus,
the petitioners' rights have already been crystallized. Consequently,
an application for mutation was preferred by the petitioners before
the Tahsildar, Ratlam (MP) in the month of February, 2019, however,
the same has been dismissed by the Tahsildar, Ratlam, District
WP No.3597/2021
Ratlam (MP) vide order dated 20.03.2019 (Annexure P/6); and the
aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioners before the Sub
Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ratlam Rural, District Ratlam (MP),
who vide its order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P/7) has also
affirmed the aforesaid order passed by the Tahsildar, Ratlam, District
Ratlam (MP) by observing, that Miscellaneous Civil Case
No.696/2008 has been filed for restoration of the second appeal
No.217/2004 in the High Court along with an application for
condonation of as well as setting aside the abatement of the second
appeal which is still pending.
The appeal (Appeal No.1188/Appeal/2020-21) preferred on
27.01.2020 (Annexure P/8) against the order dated 17.12.2019
passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ratlam (MP) has
also met with the same fate in the Court of Commissioner, Ujjain
Division, Ujjain (MP) who, in its order dated 25.01.2021 (Annexure
P/1), has erroneously noted, that MCC No.696/2008 is still pending,
which was submitted on 18.06.2019.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has
drawn the attention of this Court to the final order passed in
Miscellaneous Civil Case No.1421/2019 (and not in MCC
No.696/2008), which has already been dismissed on 19.06.2020 by
this Court; and it is submitted that not only that the Commissioner,
Ujjain Division, Ujjain recorded wrong number of the MCC as
WP No.3597/2021
696/2008, but it has also been wrongly noted that it is still pending in
the High Court, despite the fact that the order of dismissal of the said
MCC No.1421/2019 had already been brought on record in the Court
of Commissioner.
4. Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to
the earlier order sheets dated 17.02.2021 as also 30.06.2021 passed
by this Court in the present writ petition to submit that this Court has
also taken note of the fact that the petitioners' application for
mutation of their names in the revenue records has been wrongly
dismissed, as the MCC for restoration, as filed by the State, had
already been dismissed; and hence, an affidavit was sought by this
court from the Tahsildar, Ratlam, District Ratlam (MP) to clear the
confusion and pursuant to which, Shri Gopal Soni s/o Late Shri K.L.
Soni, Tahsildar, Ratlam (MP) in its affidavit dated 06.07.2021 has
stated that although MCC No.1421/2019 has already been dismissed
by this Court on 19.06.2020, but the State Government is
considering filing of a review application. However, there is no
document filed on record to substantiate that such an application is
also under consideration at the State level.
5. Thus, Senior Counsel has submitted that the impugned orders
have been passed on erroneous facts hence, are liable to be set aside.
6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State of Madhya
Pradesh, on the other hand, has submitted that an affidavit which has
WP No.3597/2021
been filed on record, states that a review application is to be filed
hence, he further needs some time to seek instructions in the matter,
if a review application has been filed.
7. Heard. On due consideration of the rival submissions and
perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Revenue Authorities
including the Tahsildar, Ratlam (MP), Sub Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Ratlam (MP) as also the Commissioner, Indore Division,
Ujjain (MP) have grossly erred in recording, that Miscellaneous
Civil Case (M.C.C.) filed by the State Government in the High Court
for restoration of Second Appeal No.217/2004 is still pending,
despite the fact that Miscellaneous Civil Case No.1421/2019 already
stood dismissed on 19.06.2020.
8. It is also found that the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain
(MP), in a most cavalier manner, has noted the registration number
of MCC wrong as it is mentioned that "MCC No.696/2008" is still
pending, despite the fact that there is no such MCC preferred by the
State for restoration of SA No.217/2004 filed by the State. In view of
the same, there was no reason for the respondent / State Government
to reject the petitioners' application for mutation of their names in the
revenue records.
9. Consequently, impugned order dated 25.01.2021 (Annexure
P/1) passed in Appeal No.1188/Appeal/2019-20 by the Additional
Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain (MP) is hereby set aside; and
WP No.3597/2021
the respondents are directed to decide the petitioners' application for
mutation of their names in the revenue records, as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, Writ Petition
No.3597/2021 is hereby allowed and stands disposed of.
(Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge
Pithawe RC
RAMESH CHANDRA PITHWE
2021.08.16 19:08:03 +05'30'
