Ramesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8805 MP

                                                   1
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                            ON THE 1st OF JULY, 2022

                                       MISC. PETITION No. 5912 of 2019

                           Between:-
                           RAMESH S/O GOKUL RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 54
                           Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                           DAGAWASHANKER TAH HARDA MP (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI KAUSTUBH JHA, ADVOCATE)

                           AND

                      1.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
                           SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT MANTRALAYA
                           VALLABH   BHAWAN  BHOPAL (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                      2.   THE        COMMISSIONER      NARMADAPURAN
                           D I V I S I O N DIVN.HOSHANGABAD  (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                      3.   THE    COLLECTOR H A R D A DISTT.HARDA
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.   SUB      DIVISIONAL      OFFICER    REVENUE
                           D E P A R T M E N T DISTT.HARDA     (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                      5.   THE   TEHSILDAR         HARDA DISTT.HARDA
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      6.   SHANKAR S/O KISHANL RAJPUTI AJANTA
                           COMPLEX FLATE NO. 4/31 INDRAPURI COLONY
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      7.   SANJAY S/O KISHANLAL RAJPUT ASHOKA
                           VIHAR IN FRONT OF NAGAR NIGAM COLONY
Signature Not              (MADHYA PRADESH)
 SAN
Verified

Digitally signed by                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
RASHMI RONALD              (BY SMT. GARIMA TIWARI, PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTS
VICTOR
Date: 2022.07.02
10:30:14 IST
                                2
        1 TO 5)
        (SHRI A.K. SHUKLA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 6 & 7)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

Heard on question of admission.

This miscellaneous petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09/10/2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad, whereby learned Additional Commissioner has set aside the order dated 07/09/2018 passed by SDO (Revenue), Harda District Harda and maintained the order dated 26/08/2017 passed on the panji mutating the name

of present petitioner and respondents 6 & 7 in place of Mangi Bai.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of respondents 6 & 7 was mutated on panji without issuing any notice to the present petitioner which has rightly been set aside by SDO vide order dated 07/09/2018 and the learned Additional Commissioner has committed illegality in reversing the order of SDO vide impugned order dated 09/10/2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent No.7 has already instituted suit for declaration of title, partition and separate possession with regard to the suit property which is pending before Civil Judge Class-II, Harda and he submits that the rights of the parties are yet to be decided in the pending civil suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of order of SDO passed on 07/09/2018, the revenue record has already been corrected and at present only the name of present petitioner is in existence. He submits that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 09/10/2019 be set aside.

Learned counsel for respondents 6 & 7 submits that they being sons of Kamla, who was daughter of Mangi Bai, have right over 1/2 share in the property in question and their name was rightly mutated by Tehsildar and the Additional Commissioner has rightly set aside order dated 07/09/2018 passed by SDO and he submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by Additional Commissioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Without going into merits of the submissions made by the rival parties and in view of the fact that Civil Suit has already been filed by respondent No.7/Sanjay, in which the respondent No.6 is also party, this Court deems appropriate to maintain the order dated 09/10/2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad and accordingly, it is directed that all the orders passed with regard to mutation shall remain subject to final outcome of the civil suit pending before Civil Judge Class-II, Harda.

It is further directed that both the parties shall maintain status-quo with regard to the suit property during pendency of the civil suit and no party shall create third party interest or change the nature of property in any manner. Despite this order, if any sale deed or alienation is made by any of the parties to the suit, that shall be void in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jehal Tanti and others Vs. Nageshwar Singh (Dead) Through LRs.

reported in (2013) 14 SCC 689.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.

(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL) JUDGE RS