Sodharabai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1808 MP

                                   1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                            BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                    ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                    WRIT PETITION No. 1935 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
SODHARABAI W/O SHRI KAILASH NARAYAN, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE AND
THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI
GIRDHARILAL PATIDAR S/O SHRI BHAWARJI PATIDAR
AGED 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O
VILLAGE BAWADIYA KALAN, TEHSIL HUZUR, DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHISH GIRI - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
      REVENUE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT BHOPAL OLD
      SECRETARIAT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G.P. SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making a prayer to issue writ of mandamus directing respondents to correct revenue record by recording the name of petitioner in revenue record.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that judgment and decree has been passed by trial Court which has been further affirmed by

appellate Court as well as Apex Court. It is further submitted that petitioner has preferred a representation before Secretary Revenue and prayed that said authority be directed to consider and decide his representation in accordance with law.

3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for State opposed the petition and submitted that petitioner has filed application for mutation. Said application is to be decided by competent authority in accordance with law.

4. Heard the counsel for the parties.

5. Grievance of petitioner is in respect of his application for mutation. Said application is pending before Collector and same has not been decided.

Petitioner ought to have filed application for mutation before Naib Tehsildar who is competent authority to consider and decide his application for mutation on basis of document submitted by him. Collector cannot consider the application filed by petitioner, therefore, no directions can be given in this writ petition.

6. In view of same, writ petition filed by petitioner, is dismissed.

7. Petitioner is at liberty to move proper application before competent authority for recording of his name in revenue records.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE SHABAN shabana Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=4bc06f2e678b75148b60bb7947ee9ffc5ed27ef1f43a5d4d93d2d1 3dda510735,

A ANSARI pseudonym=B646F86821C200C9792A53984F1D0790135DE39A, serialNumber=8A5E15A33816E651B4DB52BF3225281EF6C191F68E5EBE9 0A6E101CF42422711, cn=SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2023.02.01 14:41:29 +05'30'