Indrasan Patel vs Motilal Patel
2023 Latest Caselaw 4992 MP

                          1             MP No.2930/2020


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
             AT JABALPUR
                      BEFORE
   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
             ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2023
            MISC. PETITION No. 2930 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDRASAN PATEL S/O LATE RAMASHRAYA
PATEL,   AGED   ABOUT    44  YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O. VILL.
ITAHAKALA POLICE STATION LOUR TEH
NAIGADHI, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)


                                           .....PETITIONER
(NONE )

AND

1.   MOTILAL    PATEL   S/O   LATE
     RAMASHRAYA PATEL, AGED ABOUT
     62     YEARS,     OCCUPATION:
     AGRICULTURIST    R/O.    VILL.
     ITAHAKALA POLICE STATION LOUR
     TEH NAIGADHI, DISTRICT REWA
     (MADHYA PRADESH)



2.   DY.COMMISSIONER, REWA DIVISION
     DISTT.REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)



3.   SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEHSIL
     MOUGANJ DISTT.REWA (MADHYA
     PRADESH)



4.   TEHSILDAR,    TEHSIL   NAIGADI
     DISTT.REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                                   2                            MP No.2930/2020


(MS.SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4/STATE
AND NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1, THOUGH REPRESENTED)

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

following:

                                 ORDER

On a call given by the State Bar Council of M.P. the lawyers are abstaining from work in spite of letter dated 22.3.2023, issued by the Bar Council of India thereby requesting the State Bar Council of M.P. to follow the various dictums passed by the Supreme Court from time to time in respect of strike.

2. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.03.2023 passed In Reference (Suo Moto) Vs. Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P. & others (W.P. No.7295/2023) has issued following directions:

(i) All the advocates throughout the State of Madhya Pradesh are hereby directed to attend to their court work forthwith. They shall represent their clients in the respective cases before the respective courts forthwith;

(ii) If any lawyer deliberately avoids to attend the court, it shall be presumed that there is disobedience of this order and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings for contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act;

(iii) If any lawyer prevents any other lawyer from attending the court work, the same would be considered as disobedience of these directions and he will be faced with serious consequences including initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act;

(iv) Each of the judicial officers are directed to submit a report as to which lawyer has deliberately abstained from attending the court;

(v) The judicial officers shall also mention the names of advocates who have prevented other

advocates from entering the court premises or from conducting their cases in the court;

(vi) Such advocates shall be dealt with seriously which may even include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as well as being debarred from practice.

3. In spite of that Lawyers are abstaining from court work.

4. Under these circumstances, this Court has no other option but to issue notice to counsels for the petitioner to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for violating the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chairman, State Bar Council of M.P and Others (supra).

5. Office is directed to register separate proceedings for the same.

6. This Miscellaneous Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in Case No.305/Appeal/19-20, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

7. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition in short, are that the petitioner moved an application for mutation of his name on the basis of a Will. However, the said application was rejected by the Tahsildar. The appeal was also dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and by the impugned order the second appeal by the petitioner has also been dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa.

8. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the name of a person can be mutated on the basis of a Will.

9. The question is no more res integra.

10. 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."

11. 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. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in concluding that the first defendant by his conduct had acquiesced and divested himself of title of his half-share in suit property and the said erroneous conclusion is liable to be set aside."

12. 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."

13. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name on the basis of a Will was not maintainable.

14. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. However, the liberty is granted to the petitioner that if he so desires, then he can file a suit for declaration of his title on the basis of Will.

15. Needless to mention here that since the revenue authority has no jurisdiction to decide the question of genuineness of a Will in a mutation proceeding, therefore, any finding given by them in a proceeding, is a nullity. Thus, it is directed that in case if the suit is filed, then the Civil Court shall decide the case strictly in accordance with evidence, which have come on recorded by the revenue authorities without getting influenced by the findings recorded by the revenue authorities.

16. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

TG/-

TRUPTI GUNJAL 2023.03.31 10:39:50 +05'30'