Smt. Kanta Devi vs Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 1024 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR



MISC PETITION NO.                              2568/2020
Parties Name                  SMT. KANTA DEVI
                              AND OTHERS
                                       VS.
                              COMMISSIONER, NARMADPURAM
                              AND OTHERS
Bench Constituted             Single Bench
Judgment delivered By         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether       approved    for YES/NO
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioners: Shri Himanshu Mishra, Advocate.

                              For Respondents : Ms. Anjali Shrivastava, Advocate.

Law laid down                 -
Significant         paragraph -
number


                                  (O R D E R )
                                   24/03/2021

Petitioners have filed this Misc. Petition challenging order

dated 4.8.2020 passed by Commissioner, Narmadpuram, Division

Hoshangabad.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under: -

One Gurmukh Das has filed an application for mutation of

his name in the revenue records. Petitioners are legal heir of

deceased Gurmukh Das. Application filed by petitioners was

registered as Revenue Case No.248-A/6/2012-13 in the Court of

Nazool Officer, Hoshangabad. In proceedings before Nazool

Officer, examination of witnesses on behalf of petitioners was

made and case was fixed for cross-examination.

Respondents/objectors were given last opportunity to cross-

examine the witnesses on 3.8.2017 but counsel appearing for

respondents did not examine the witnesses. Since Respondents

did not availed the opportunity of cross-examination, therefore,

their right to cross-examining the witnesses was closed on

27.9.2017.

Said order was challenged by respondent namely;

Omprakash S/o Radhamal and others by filing an application

under section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, but same was

also rejected vide order dated 10.11.2017. Nazool Officer,

Hoshangabad granted respondents opportunity to adduce their

evidence to prove their case for mutation. Respondents

challenged order dated 10.11.2017 in revision under Section 50 of

M.P.L.R Code, before Collector, Hoshangabad. Revision filed by

respondents was dismissed vide order dated 1.2.2018.

3. When proceedings for mutation in respect of petitioners

were pending in Revenue Case No.248-A/6/2012-13,

respondents/objectors filed a fresh application for mutation of

their names. Said application was registered as Revenue Case

No.14-A/6/2016-17. Nazool Officer, vide its order dated

15.12.2017 rejected the application of respondents/objectors on

the ground that mutation proceedings between the same parties

in respect of same property is already pending before Nazool

Officer in Revenue Case No.248-A/6/2012-13. In said case

witnesses have also been examined and respondents were called

upon to adduce their evidence for mutation. Since application

between same parties were pending, therefore, Nazool Officer

dismissed the fresh application filed by the respondents/objectors

before him.

4. Said order was challenged by respondent Omprakash and

others by filing an appeal before Additional Collector,

Hoshangabad, and Additional Collector, Hoshangabad vide its

order dated 14.8.2019 allowed the appeal and directed Nazool

Officer to hear both the cases namely; Revenue Case No.248-

A/6/2012-13 and Revenue Case No.14-A/6/2016-17 together on

its merit after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

5. Said order was challenged by the petitioners before

Additional Commissioner, Narmadpuram. Additional

Commissioner maintained the order passed by the Collector and

dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by

order passed by Additional Commissioner dated 4.8.2020,

petitioners have filed this Misc. Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that order

passed by Nazool Officer dated 15.12.2017 was just and proper.

Mutation application between the parties was pending for

consideration before Nazool Officer, therefore, fresh application,

which was filed by respondents was not maintainable.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no error

has been committed by the Collector as well as by the Additional

Commissioner in passing the impugned orders. Respondents had

filed an application for mutation and same application ought to

have been considered by the Nazool Officer. Application for

mutation, filed by the petitioners as well as by the respondents

should be heard together. Additional Collector as well as

Additional Commissioner, Hoshangabad has rightly set aside order

of Nazool Officer dated 15.12.2017.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered all

the orders passed by Revenue Officers. On going through the

order passed by Nazool Officer it is evident that Nazool Officer,

Hoshangabad has passed a proper order on 15.12.2017.

Application for mutation, which was filed by petitioners was

pending before Nazool Officer in Revenue Case No.248-A/6/2012-

13. In this case respondents were appearing as objectors. Their

right to cross examine the witnesses was closed as they did not

cross-examine witnesses after repeated opportunity. Thereafter

Nazool Officer has given respondents an opportunity to adduce

evidence to show why mutation shall be done in their names.

Appropriate opportunity of hearing has been given to respondents

by Nazool Officer, Hoshangabad. Respondents to circumvent the

order of Nazool Officer closing their right of cross-examination

has filed a fresh application for mutation. Fresh application filed

by respondents was not maintainable before Nazool Officer.

Respondents are already appearing before him in Revenue Case

No.248-A/6/2012-13. They were also been given an opportunity of

hearing and to adduce evidence.

9. In these circumstances fresh application to circumvent the

order which has become final in revision is not proper and

appropriate. The application filed by respondents is also contrary

to law as identical proceedings between same party and for same

property for mutation are pending before Nazool Officer in

Revenue Case No.248-A/6/2012-13. Therefore, fresh application

for mutation of names of respondents is not maintainable and

their claim is to be considered in pending case.

10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, order passed by Additional Collector and Commissioner

dated 14.8.2019 and 4.8.2020 are quashed. Parties may appear

before Nazul Officer, Hoshangabad to prosecute their application

for mutation in Revenue Case No.248-A/6/2012-13.

11. With the aforesaid direction, this Misc. Petition stands

allowed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms

Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2021.03.25 11:01:36 +05'30'