Dilip Kumar Gupta vs Pradip Gupta
2022 Latest Caselaw 7332 MP

                              1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT JABALPUR

                      BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH

                   ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2022
        MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 2208 of 2022
Between:-

Dilip Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Ram
Gopal, aged about 55 years,
Occupation businessman, R/o Ward
No. 8, Beohari, Tahsil Beohari,
district Singrauli (M.P.).

                                                     ...Petitioner
(Shri Prabhakar Singh, counsel for the petitioner)

And

1. Pradip Gupta S/o Shri Ram Pratap
   Gupta, aged about 52 years, Occ.
   Businessman, R/o Village-beohari,
   Ward No. 8 Tahsil-Beohari,
   district Shahdol (M.P.).
2. Rajesh Gupta S/o Shri Ram Pratap
   Gupta, aged about 50 years, R/o
   village Beohari, Ward No. 8,
   Tahsil Beohari, district Singrauli
   (M.P.)
3. Sunil Kumar gupta, S/o Shri Ram
   Pratap Gupta, aged about 48
   years, R/o village Beohari, Ward
   No. 8, Tahsil Beohari, district
   Shahdol (M.P.).
                                2




4. The Additional Collector Shahdol,
   district Shahdol.
                                                      ...Respondents

(Respondent No. 4 by Shri              Chandrapal   Singh    Parmar,
Government Advocate)

(None for other respondents.)
...................................................................................
     These writ petition coming on for hearing on admission and I.A.
No. 6050/2022, an application for stay.

                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.4.2022 passed by the Additional Collector, Shahdol; whereby, the Collector has set aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer as well as of Tahsildar of mutation of names of petitioner No. 1 and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in place of deceased owner Durgabai Gupta.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that Durgabai was mother of petitioner Dilip Kumar Gupta, and respondent Nos. 1 to 3, viz., Pradip Gupta, Rajesh Gupta and Sunil Kumar Gupta. After her death Dilip and Sunil had applied for mutation on the ground of succession while Pradeep and Rajesh applied for mutation on the ground of Will executed by their mother Durgabai in their favour. Both the applications were pending before the Tahsildar but he passed order in the application filed by the petitioner and mutated the land of Durgabai in favour of all four brothers. The order was complied with and the land was mutated in the name of all four brothers on the basis of succession.

3. On revision, the Sub Divisional Officer set aside the order stating that let the parties get their title decided by the competent Court but he did not direct to remove the name of all the sons of Durgabai which was creating complications. Therefore, the Collector directed to restore the original status of the name over the disputed land with a further direction to the parties to get their claim adjudicated from the competent Civil Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Collector has directed to mutate the name of deceased person over the disputed land but this is misconceived and contrary to the record.

5. Looking to the dispute between all four sons of deceased Durgabai and the order passed by the Tahsildar considering the claim of only one side, no illegality or perversity appear in the order. Therefore, the admission is declined and the petition is dismissed.

(Virender Singh) Judge

vivek

VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI 2022.05.13 15:42:26 +05'30'