Aatma Prasad vs Ram Kumar Nai
2023 Latest Caselaw 2760 MP

                             1          MP No.3645/2021


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
              ON THE 15th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
              MISC. PETITION No. 3645 of 2021
BETWEEN:-

1.    AATMA PRASAD NAI S/O SHRI
      RAMLAKHAN NAI, AGED ABOUT 41
      YEARS,            OCCUPATION:
      AGRICULTURIST   R/O    VILLAGE
      TEDHKALA   TEHSIL   TEONTHAR,
      DISTRICT    REWA      (MADHYA
      PRADESH)



2.    RAGHAV PRASAD NAI S/O SHRI
      RAMLAKHAN NAI, AGED ABOUT 39
      YEARS,            OCCUPATION:
      AGRICULTURIST   R/O    VILLAGE
      TEDHKALA   TEHSIL   TEONTHAR,
      DISTRICT    REWA      (MADHYA
      PRADESH)



                                        .....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR DUBEY - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    RAM KUMAR NAI S/O LATE SHRI
      GOMTI PRASAD NAI, AGED ABOUT 42
      YEARS,             OCCUPATION:
      AGRICULTURIST    R/O    VILLAGE
      TEDHKALA   TEHSIL    TEONTHAR
      DISTRICT    REWA       (MADHYA
      PRADESH)



2.    MANIKLAL NAI S/O LATE SHRI
      GOMTI PRASAD NAI, AGED ABOUT 40
      YEARS,             OCCUPATION:
                              2                 MP No.3645/2021


     AGRICULTURIST   R/O   VILLAGE
     TEDHKALA   TEHSIL   TEONTHAR
     DISTRICT    REWA     (MADHYA
     PRADESH)



3.   RAJ KUMAR NAI S/O LATE SHRI
     GOMTI PRASAD NAI, AGED ABOUT 38
     YEARS,             OCCUPATION:
     AGRICULTURIST    R/O    VILLAGE
     TEDHKALA   TEHSIL    TEONTHAR
     DISTRICT    REWA       (MADHYA
     PRADESH)



4.   HORILAL NAI S/O LATE SHRI GOMTI
     PRASAD NAI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
     VILLAGE     TEDHKALA      TEHSIL
     TEONTHAR      DISTRICT     REWA
     (MADHYA PRADESH)



5.   THE   ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR
     REWA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
     PRADESH)



6.   THE    SUB-DIVISIONAL   OFFICER
     (REVENUE)    TEHSIL   TEONTHAR
     DISTRICT      REWA     (MADHYA
     PRADESH)



7.   TEHSILDAR   TEHSIL    TEONTHAR,
     DISTRICT    REWA        (MADHYA
     PRADESH)



                                              .....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO
7/STATE)
                                   3                     MP No.3645/2021


      This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the

following:

                                ORDER

This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by Additional Collector Rewa, District Rewa in Case No.101/revision/2020-21 and order dated 29.10.2020 passed by Sub Divisional Officer Teonthar, District Rewa in Case No.106/A- 6/appeal/2013-14.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had filed an application for mutation of their names on the basis of a Will. The said application was allowed by Tehsildar by order dated 06.06.2012. Thereafter, the respondents No.1 to 4 filed an application for review and accordingly, the Tehsildar sought sanction from the S.D.O. However, the S.D.O. by order dated 24.05.2014 refused to grant sanction on the ground that there is no ground for review. Thereafter, the respondents no.1 to 4 have filed an appeal under Section 44 of M.P.L.R. Code. The petitioners filed an objection before the S.D.O. with regard to the maintainability of the appeal after the dismissal of an application for grant of sanction for review. However, by the order dated 29.10.2020 the objection was rejected and the case was fixed for consideration of application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, District Rewa which was registered as Case No.101/revision/20-21 and the said

revision has been dismissed on the ground that the appeal filed before the S.D.O. Teonthar, District Rewa is maintainable.

3. Challenging the order passed by the Tribunals below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that once the S.D.O. Teonthar, District Rewa was of the view that no grounds for review are available and refused to grant sanction under Section 51 of M.P.L.R. Code, then the appeal against the original order passed by the Tehsildar was not maintainable.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Section 51 of M.P.L.R. Code provides that if an Officer subordinate to the Collector or District Survey Officer proposes to review of order whether passed by himself or his predecessor, then he shall first obtain the sanction in writing of the Collector or District Survey Officer to whom he is immediate subordinate. In the present case, the sanction was sought by the Tehsildar and the said sanction was refused by the SDO Teonthar, District Rewa.

6. It is well established principle of law that review can be done in case if there is an error on the face of record. Under the garb of review, the entire order cannot be reopened and even if an order is erroneous, it is required to be challenged before the appellate authority. Thus, the refusal to grant sanction was in the light of the scope of review and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that by refusing to grant sanction, the S.D.O. Teonthar, District Rewa had affirmed the order of Tehsildar dated 06.06.2012 on its merits. Accordingly, S.D.O. Teonthar, District Rewa did not commit any mistake by rejecting the objection filed by the petitioners by order dated 29.10.2020.

7. Under these circumstances, The Additional Collector Rewa also did not commit any mistake by dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners by impugned order dated 19.03.2021.

8. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioners had sought the mutation of their names on the basis of a Will. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (civil) No.13146/2021 has held as under:

"6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter. 6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v.

Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70."

9. The Supreme Court in the case of H. Lakshmaiah Reddy v. L. Venkatesh Reddy, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 784 has held as under:

"8. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the first defendant did not relinquish or release his right in respect of the half-share in the suit property at any point of time and that is also not the case pleaded by the plaintiff. The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mutation, the first defendant divested himself of the title and possession of half-share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh case are relevant and are extracted below: (SCC p. 142, paras 21-22) "21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr Sanyal is right in his contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also was given to the persons in whose favour mutation was effected. In Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, Pattanaik, J., speaking for the Bench has clearly held as follows: (SCC p. 227, para 7) '7. ... Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.'

22. Applying the above legal position, we hold that the widow had not divested herself of the title in the suit property as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7- 1954. The assumption on the part of the courts below

that as a result of the mutation, the widow divested herself of the title and possession was wrong. If that be so, legally, she was in possession on the date of coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act and she, as a full owner, had every right to deal with the suit properties in any manner she desired."

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commr., reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186 has held as under :

"9. There is an additional reason as to why we need not interfere with that order under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh). As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in regard to genuineness of will are pending with the High Court of Delhi. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition."

11. However, as the appeal is still pending before the S.D.O., therefore, the matter is left to the discretion of the appellate authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The S.D.O. shall decide the question of maintainability of application for mutation on the basis of Will.

12. With aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE vc

VARSHA CHOURASIYA 2023.02.15 18:45:45 +05'30'