Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madansingh vs Revenue Department on 12 January, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
W.P. No. 17672/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 12th OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 17672 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MADANSINGH S/O LATE DEVISINGH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
1. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST GRAM JHIRNIYA, TEHSIL
SHUJALPUR, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
JUGALKISHORE S/O LATE DEVISINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST GRAM JHIRNIYA, TEHSIL
SHUJALPUR, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
MANSINGH S/O LATE DEVISINGH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
3. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST GRAM JHIRNIYA, TEHSIL
SHUJALPUR, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI NARAYAN TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS.)
AND
REVENUE DEPARTMENT THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
1.
VALLABH BHAWAN DISTRICT BHOAPL (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER, UJJAIN DIVISION COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
2.
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
COLLECTOR, SHAJAPUR COLLECTOR OFFICE, UJJAIN
3.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
TEHSILDAR TEHSIL OFFICE, SHUJALPUR, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
4.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
AYAJ MOHAMMAD S/O AKIL MOHAMMAD NEAR JAIHIND
5. TALKIES SHUJALPUR CITY, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
IQBAL MOHAMMAD S/O AKIL MOHAMMAD NEAR JAIHIND
6. TALKIES SHUJALPUR CITY, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
JARINABI W/O LIYAKAT ALI D/O AKIL MOHAMMAD
7. SHUJALPUR, AT PRESENT- NEAR GOPAL MANDIR UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
- : 2 :-
W.P. No. 17672/2022
(SHRI AMIT SINGH SISODIA, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS/STATE ON ADVANCE COPY.)
This petition coming on for hearing on admission this day, the
court passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved
by order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Shujalpur and order dated 8.9.2021 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Ujjain Division whereby both the appeals have been
dismissed.
The father of the petitioners - Devisingh had filed an
application u/s. 109, 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code
(MPLRC), 1959 for mutation of his name for one third land of
Survey No. 6/1 area 3.991 Hect. in view of the judgment and decree
dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Shujalpur in
Civil Suit No. 38A/2003. After the aforesaid civil suit, the present
petitioners being the legal heirs of Devisingh filed another suit No.
RCSA/10/2012 before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Shujalpur seeking
declaration that they are "Bhoomi Swami" and occupier. The said
suit was dismissed vide ordr dated 27.10.2017. On the basis of
dismissal of the said suit, the Tehsildar has dismissed the
application for mutation vide order dated 3.1.2018.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Tehsildar, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the SDO u/s. 44 of the
MPLRC and the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.2.2018
against which another appeal was filed before the Additional
Commissioner which also came to be dismissed vide order dated
- : 3 :-
W.P. No. 17672/2022
8.9.2021, hence the present petition before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the
father of the petitioners has been declared owner of the land in
question vide judgment dated 22.2.2006 passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in Civil
Appeal No. 12-A/2006 the petitioners being the legal heirs of
Devisingh have acquired the title by way of succession, hence the
application for mutation of their name in the revenue record was
filed only for one third share. Learned revenue authorities have
wrongly dismissed the application while placing reliance over the
judgment dated 27.10.2017. The impugned orders, therefore, are
liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the
Tehsildar to mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue
record.
After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, I
have perused the material available in the record.
The father of the petitioners died in the year 2015 i.e. 9 years
after the judgment passed on 30.11.2005 and after 13 years from the
date of judgment and decree the petitioners filed an application for
mutation. The judgment and decree in favour of Devisingh had
attained finality. The petitioners filed separate suit in the year 2009
disclosing that apart from plaintiffs the deceased Devisingh had two
more sons viz. Kishore and Heeralal and three daughters viz. Sugan
Bai, Hoshiyar Bai and Padam Bai and wife - Sampat Bai, but
without impleading them, the petitioners tried to get a decree of
declaration against other legal heirs of the deceased Devisingh.
After the death of Devisingh, the petitioners did not implead other
- : 4 :-
W.P. No. 17672/2022
sons, daughters and their mother i.e. widow of Devisingh as
defendants. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 27.10.2017 has
dismissed the suit against which no appeal was filed. Therefore, on
the basis of judgment and decree in favour of Devisingh, the
petitioners without partition of the land with other legal heirs of
Devisingh have wrongly filed the application for mutation. The
revenue authorities have rightly dismissed the application. No case
for interference is made out.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed in
limine.
[ VIVEK RUSIA ]
JUDGE.
Alok/-
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2023.01.18 16:55:01 +05'30'
