Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Sharma vs Bansidhar S/O Munnalal Singhal ... on 11 May, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 10778 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ASHOK SHARMA S/O SHRI MADANLAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O 189, VINDYANCHAL NAGAR
AERODURM ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ADITYA GARG, ADVOCATE)
AND
BANSIDHAR S/O MUNNALAL SINGHAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
1. ANAND S/O BANSIDHAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ASHISH S/O
ANAND R/ MAYUR NAGAR DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
BANSIDHAR S/O MUNNALAL SINGHAL (DECD) THROUGH LRS.
2. RAJENDRA S/O BANSHILAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. RAHUL S/O
RAJENDRA NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)
BANSIDHAR S/O MUNNALAL SINGHAL (DECD) THROUGH LRS.
3.
PRANENDRRA S/O BANSILAL NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)
NARENDRA S/O BANSIDHAR SINGHAL MAYUR NAGAR, TEHSIL AND
4.
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
M/S MUNNALAL PANNALAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. THROUGH
5. DIRECTOR RAJENDRA SINGHAL 22, SAFED GIRJAGHAR COLONY,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
M/S HIMGIRI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR
6. MANORAMA SINGHAL 17 RACECOURSE ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. KAMLESH S/O BABULAL VED 51, M.T. CLOTH MARKET, INDORE
-2-
(MADHYA PRADESH)
KISHORE KUMAR S/O MURLIDHAR GUJRATI 3/5, NORTH
8.
RAJMOHALLA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
SUNIL KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI NAVNEETLAL GUJRATI 106, RAJARAM
9. MOHANROY COMPLEX, M.T.H. COMPOUND, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
HAJI COMPANY PARTNERSHI FIRM THROUGH PARTNER SALIM S/O
10. LATE HAJI HABIB 25 NIPANIYA ROAD, BEHIND
MOSQUE,KHAJRANA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved
by the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue,
Gwalior, whereby revision filed by respondent No.8 has been allowed
and the order dated 25.05.1998 passed by Naib Tehsildar, order dated
31.01.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and order dated
20.05.2014 passed Additional Commissioner have been set aside.
According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order has been passed without
giving him opportunity of hearing.
02. The petitioner purchased the land bearing Survey Nos.1105 and
1005/1528 area 25.06 acre from respondent No.6 - Kishore Kumar vide
registered sale deed dated 06.04.1998. Respondent No.6 purchased the
land from respondent Nos.1 to 3. After the execution of the sale deed,
the petitioner applied for mutation and his name was mutated in the
revenue record. After almost 15 years, some partner of one Haji
Company filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer challenging
the mutation order passed in favour of respondents No.1 to 3. The
appeal was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated
31.01.2014. Thereafter, respondent No.8 filed a revision before the
Board of Revenue which was allowed by the impugned order dated
04.04.2018.
03. During the argument, Shri Garg, learned counsel for the
petitioner has fairly stated that civil suit has already been filed
challenging the sale deeds executed by respondents.
04. It is settled law that all the revenue entries and the order passed
by the revenue authority are subjected to the judgments passed by the
Civil Court. Even otherwise, the impugned order has been passed in the
year 2018, and thereafter, revenue entries have been corrected, therefore,
now the same are liable to be further corrected only on the basis of the
findings given by the Civil Court. No case for interference is made out
in the matter.
In view of the above, present Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Ravi
Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH
Date: 2023.05.12 18:39:43 +05'30'
