Gopal Dutt Dholakhandi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9757 MP

                               1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                               &
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
                   ON THE 15TH OF JULY, 2022

                   WRIT APPEAL NO.833 OF 2022

       Between:-

       GOPAL DUTT DHOLAKHANDI S/O
       LATE   SHRI    KESHAV  DUTT
       DHOLAKHANDI AGE 53 YEARS
       OCCUPATION BUSINESS R/O B-21
       BASANT VIHAR, GWALIOR.
                                            ........APPELLANT

       (BY SHRI S.S. BANSAL - ADVOCATE)

       AND

1.     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
       THROUGH     ITS   PRINCIPAL
       SECRETARY,         REVENUE
       DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAVAN,
       BHOPAL.

2.     COLLECTOR,              DISTRICT
       GWALIOR.

3.     COLLECTOR     STAMP,          CITY
       CENTRE, GWALIOR.

4.     ADDITIONAL      TEHSILDAR,
       BAHODAPUR CIRCLE, GWALIOR
                                            2

       DISTRICT GWALIOR.
                                                           ........RESPONDENTS

        (BY SHRI ANKUR MODY - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This appeal coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
G.S. Ahluwalia, passed the following:
                                   JUDGMENT

This Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed against the order dated 13/5/2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10441/2022.

2. The facts in short are that the appellant had filed a writ petition against the order dated 3/9/2021 passed in case No.238/20-21/A-6 passed by the Tahsildar, Bahodapur Circle, Gwalior, by which the respondent no.4 had refused to delete the name of Smt. Meenakshi Dhaulakhandi from the revenue records.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that a consent decree was passed and in view of the settlement, it was decided that Rs.1,80,00,000/- would be paid to Smt. Meenakshi Dhaulakhandi. Thereafter, an application for closing the executing proceedings was filed on the ground that in lieu of Rs.1,80,00,000/-, the appellant has given one building having area 4828 sqft situated in Phalke Ka Baada and accordingly, the vacant possession of the said property is being given to Smt. Meenakshi Dhaulakhandi. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application for correction of revenue records, which was dismissed by the Additional Tahsildar on the ground that the decree is an unregistered

document.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/appellant herein preferred a writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

6. It is clear from the application which was moved before the Executing Court that in lieu of Rs.1,80,00,000/-, the appellant has agreed to relinquish his share in the property having area of 4828 sqft situated in Phalke Ka Baada. The learned Single Judge has come to a conclusion that when a new right is created in favour of any party to the suit by way of a compromise of a value of Rs.100/- and above, then the decree is required to be compulsorily registered. The learned Single Judge had opined that Smt. Meenakshi Dhaulakhandi had relinquished her 1/3 rd share in favour of the petitioner/appellant herein and Hemdutt in the compromise application, therefore, the decree dated 11/3/2011 could not be said to had recognized any preexisting right in the property between the parties. Furthermore, it is clear from the application that the house in question was given in lieu of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. It is not the case of the appellant that the house in question was given in partition.

7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no error was committed by the learned Single Judge by rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein. Even otherwise, the petition filed before the Writ Court was necessarily a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as per Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, Writ Appeal arising out of an order under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is not maintainable.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

     (G.S. AHLUWALIA)                      (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
           JUDGE                                     JUDGE
Arun*
             ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
             2022.07.19 17:57:28 +05'30'