Parmanand Alias Pushp Kumar ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6861 MP

                                                                        1                                WP-9667-2020
                                             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                        WP-9667-2020
                                      (PARMANAND ALIAS PUSHP KUMAR BADKUR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                     7
                                     Jabalpur, Dated : 26-10-2021
                                           Shri Siddharth Gulatee, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                           Shri Tapan Bathre, learned panel lawyer for the respondents/State.

Shri Subhodh Kathar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. The petitioner has been filed this petition seeking following relief(s) :-

"7.1 It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the

respondents Nos.2 and 4 be directed to dispose of the revenue case namely case no.13/A6/2018-19 pending before the respondent No.4 and direct mutation of the name of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2018.

7.2. That, any other writ, direction or order as may be deemed fit may also be issued together with awarding of costs of these proceedings."

It is pointed out that after obtaining the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2018 passed by the First Civil Judge Class-II, Itarsi District

Hoshangabad against the respondents by a competent civil court in Civil Suit No.53-A/2017, an application was filed before Tehsildar for mutation of land in question. The same is kept pending and has not been decided till date. It is pointed out that although first appeal has been filed which is pending consideration but there is no interim relief in favour of the respondents. An innocuous prayer is made to direct the concerning Tehsildar to consider and decide the case of mutation within the stipulated time frame giving audience to the concerned parties.

Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed the same pointing out the conduct of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner has although filed a Vakalatnama and has appeared in the appeal Signature Not Verified SAN before the Appellate Court but despite several opportunities being granted to

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.10.27 12:00:31 IST 2 WP-9667-2020 him, he has not chosen to file the reply to application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, thus the proceedings of appeal are kept pending for want of reply on the part of the petitioner/respondent therein. It is submitted that on one hand the petitioner is not cooperating and filing his reply in the pending first appeal, on the other hand he has filed the present petition seeking direction to the Tehsildar to conclude the mutation proceedings. He has

drawn the attention of this Court to an order passed by this Court on 26.08.2021 wherein the question of maintainability of the writ petition was raised.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will cooperate and participate in the pending appeal and as there is no interim order by the appellate Court and there is already a judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner, therefore, mutation proceedings cannot be stayed.

Considering the submissions made by the rival parties, as there is already a judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner, in pursuance to which application for mutation has been filed which is pending consideration before the concerning Tehsildar, in such circumstances, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to cooperate in the pending first appeal and file his response to application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, so that the appeal proceedings can be taken up and as far as direction to the Tehsildar is concerned, the petitioner is directed to file a certified copy of this order before the Tehsildar/respondent no.4 within ten days from today and in turn the respondent No.4/Tehsildar is directed to consider and decide the pending application for mutation after giving audience to the concerned parties. The exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Needless to mention here that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.

Signature Not Verified SAN

(VISHAL MISHRA) Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.10.27 12:00:31 IST 3 WP-9667-2020 JUDGE AM

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.10.27 12:00:31 IST