Asfhaq Ahmed Qureshi vs Shariful Hassan(Dead) Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4476 MP

                            1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT JABALPUR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                  ON THE 21 st OF MARCH, 2023
                MISC. PETITION No. 1741 of 2018

BETWEEN:-
ASFHAQ AHMED QURESHI S/O SHEK CHAND, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O DATA MIYA COMPOUND
AHEMDABAD PALACE ROAD KOHEFIZA, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                  .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIVEK BADEIRYA - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    SHARIFUL HASSAN(DEAD) THROUGH LRS :

      FAHMIDA SHARIFF W/O LATE SHARIFULL
A.    HASSAN R/O KOHIFIZA, BHOPAL, DISTRICT
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

B.    RIYAZ UL HASSAN S/O LATE SHARIFULL HASSAN
      R/O KOHEFIZA, BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

C.    ABDUL HASSAN S/O LATE SHARIFULL HASSAN
      R/O KOHEFIZA, BHOPAL, DISTRICT BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    REVENUE    INSPECTOR, BAIRAGARH,   TEHSIL
      HUZUR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    PANNALAL SIROTHIYA S/O SUKHNANDAN R/O
      42,VIJAY NAGAR COLONY, LALGHATI, BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    BOARD   OF REVENUE, GWALIOR      DISTRICT
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    COM M ISSIONER, BHOPAL DIVISION DISTRICT
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
                              2
6.      S.D.O., BAIRAGADH VIRAT DISTRICT BHOPAL
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.      TEHSILDAR, BAIRAGADH DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P.
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SARTHAK NEMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3., MS.
SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)

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

This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by Tahsildar, Bairagarh, District

Bhopal in case No.72/A-6/08-09, order dated 26.05.2012 passed by SDO Nazul, Bairagarh Circle Bhopal in case No.06/Appeal/2010-11, order dated 24.02.2016 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in case No.674/Appeal/11-12 and order dated 08.02.2018 passed by Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior in case No.1040-PBR/16.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased a part of land ad-measuring 0.111acres of Khasra No.104 from its original owner/respondent No.1 Sharifull Hassan vide registered sale deed dated 31.03.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application under Sections 109, 110 of MPLR Code for mutation of his name. The Tahsildar after receiving the R.I. report, rejected the application on the ground that a case pertaining to Khasra No.104 is pending between the State of M.P. and Pannalal Sirothiya and the land in Khasra No.104 is a Government land.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that it is not out of place to mention here that Pannalal Sirothiya is one of the purchaser, who had purchased a part of land from Sharifull Hassan. It is submitted that S.A. No.262/2003 was

dismissed by this Court by order dated 02.05.2012. The State Government filed an SLP, which too has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thus, it is submitted that once it has already been adjudicated finally that the land alienated by Sharifull Hassan was not a Government land but it was a land belonging to Sharifull Hassan, therefore, the application for mutation should have been considered on its own merits.

4. Per contra, the counsel for the State could not dispute that the Second Appeal filed by the State Government on which the Tahsildar had placed reliance, has already been dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The application filed by the petitioner for mutation was rejected on the ground that various disputes are pending in respect of Khasra No.104 and according to the respondents, the same was a Government land. However, the counsel for the respondents was not in a position to dispute the fact that the State has already lost its case, which was instituted by Pannalal Sirothiya. Although the petitioner has not filed a copy of the judgment passed by the trial Court in a suit instituted by Pannalal Sirothiya in which it was held that Sharifull Hassan is the owner of the land in dispute and Khasra No.104 is not a Government land.

7. Be that as it may.

8. Since, the petitioner has not filed a copy of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the First Appellate Court as well as of the Supreme Court, in the suit instituted by one Pannalal Sirothiya in which Khasra No.104 was the subject matter and the question was as to whether the State is the owner or Sharifull Hassan is the owner, this Court finds it difficult to pass a conclusive order in the present case. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the

Tahsildar, Bairagharh, District Bhopal to decide the application filed by the petitioner for mutation afresh in the light of the judgment passed by the Court in a suit instituted by Pannalal Sirothiya.

9. Needless to mention that the Tahsildar, Bairagarh shall also consider the objections, which may be raised by the respondents.

10. With aforesaid observation, the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by Tahsildar, Bariragarh, District Bhopal in case No.72/A-6/08-09, order dated 26.05.2012 passed by SDO Nazul, Bairagarh Circle Bhopal in case No.06/Appeal/2010-11, order dated 24.02.2016 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in case No.674/Appeal/11-12 and order dated 08.02.2018 passed by Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior in case No.1040-PBR/16 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tahsildar, Bairagarh for further proceedings in the light of the judgment passed by in the case instituted by Pannalal Sirothiya and objections if any.

11. The petition is disposed of finally.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2023.03.24 11:56:47 +05'30'