Rahim vs Jairu @ Jahirruddin
2023 Latest Caselaw 16926 MP

                                                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
           ON THE 11th OF OCTOBER, 2023
            WRIT PETITION No. 8701 of 2016

BETWEEN:-
   RAHIM S/O SHRI REHMAN, AGED ABOUT
   55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
1.
   BALA PRUA WARD NO. 7 SHEOPUR
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   KARIM KHAN S/O REHMAN, AGED
2. ABOUT 52 YEARS, BALA PURA WARD NO.
   7 (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SALIM S/O REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 50
3. YEARS, BALA PURA WARD NO. 7
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   KUTUBBUDDDIN S/O REHMAN, AGED
4. ABOUT 45 YEARS, BALA PURA WARD NO.
   7 (MADHYA PRADESH)
   AKBAR S/O REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 50
5. YEARS, BALA PURA WARD NO. 7
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   ASLAM S/O REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 50
6. YEARS, BALA PURA WARD NO. 7 (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   AARIF S/O REHMAN, AGED ABOUT 50
7. YEARS, BALA PURA WARD NO. 7 (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                         .....PETITIONER
(NONE FOR PETITIONERS)
AND
   JAIRU   @  JAHIRRUDDIN   S/O  SHRI
   JALLALUDDIN @ JALLA, AGED ABOUT 50
1. YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT KNOWN VILL.
   BALA PURA TEH. AND DSIT. SHEOPUR
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                     2

   NISAR    S/O   ALLADIN  VILLAGE
2.
   BAGHBAAJ (MADHYA PRADESH)
   COLLECTOR THE STATE OF MADHYA
3. PRADESH      SHEOPUR   (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMAN AGARWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.
1 AND 2 )
(BY SHRI NEELESH TOMAR               -   GOVT.    ADVOCATE      FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3/STATE)

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

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioners taking exception to the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by Board of Revenue, Gwalior (Annexure P/1) whereby matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar for undertaking mutation proceedings.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 Shri Aman Agarwal refers the fact that in respect of the same land which is subject matter of present case a civil suit was preferred by petitioners as plaintiffs and said suit was decided vide judgment dated 18.10.2013 passed by Civil Judge, Class II Sheopur (COS No.161/A/2011). Against the said judgment, present petitioners who were plaintiffs preferred civil regular appeal before Second Additional District Judge, Sheopur by way of Appeal No. RCA/400012/15 but same also met the same fate vide judgment dated 3.2.2017. No Second Appeal against said judgment was preferred. Therefore, that judgment attained finality.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 further submits

that in wake of said judgments passed by civil courts, no case remains for adjudication before Revenue Court including the Court of Tehsildar.

4. Considering the submissions of respondents No. 1 and 2 and going through the judgments placed by counsel for respondents, it appears that parties of the lis have to pursue their remedies as per the judgment and decree passed by the courts below and they are at liberty to apprise the Revenue Court including the Court of Tehsildar about such judgment and decree so that appropriate decision can be taken by the said authorities.

5. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE van

VANDANA VERMA 2023.10.12 16:27:25 +05'30'