Smt. Suryakanta Bhatt Deceased Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 21513 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Suryakanta Bhatt Deceased Through ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2024

Author: Pranay Verma

Bench: Pranay Verma

                                                              1                            WP-22124-2024
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
                                                  ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
                                                WRIT PETITION No. 22124 of 2024
                                   SMT. SURYAKANTA BHATT DECEASED THROUGH LRS.
                                               GAJANAND AND OTHERS
                                                      Versus
                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                   Shri Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for the petitioners.
                                   Ms. Mradula Sen, Panel Lawyer for the State.

                                                               ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, whereby the appeal preferred by the private respondents has been allowed.

02. The dispute is as regards mutation. On strength of judgment and

decree dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Civil Court, the petitioners had made an application before the Tehsildar for their mutation over the disputed land which was allowed by order dated 19.11.2019. The decree passed in the civil suit was meanwhile affirmed by judgment and decree dated 13.08.2019 passed by the first appellate Court. However, the same has been challenged before this Court in Second Appeal No.2657/2019 which has been admitted for final hearing by order dated 04.10.2019 (Annexure P/7) and the

2 WP-22124-2024

execution of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below has been stayed.

03. Thereafter, the private respondents preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer against the mutation order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Tehsildar which was dismissed by order dated 15.12.2020 on the ground that there is already a stay order of this Court. In second appeal preferred by them, the order passed by the Tehsildar has been set aside on the ground that since the same was passed on the basis of judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court which has been stayed by this Court, mutation ought not to have been directed.

04. The order was passed in Second Appeal No.2657/2019 by this

Court on 04.10.2019. The appeal had been admitted for final hearing, the effect of which was that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court had not attained finality and was pending in the Second Appeal. It hence could not have been said that the Civil Court had rendered any final decision in the matter of title of the parties to the land on the basis of which they could have sought for their mutation. It is not a case where the order was passed in the Second Appeal subsequent to the order passed by the Tehsildar but the same was passed prior thereto.

05. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that only the execution of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below was stayed by this Court and its effect and operation was not stayed hence mutation was permissible is not liable to be accepted since even if the said order had not been passed, the fact remains that the appeal had been admitted

3 WP-22124-2024 for final hearing taking away the finality of the judgment passed by the Civil Court. No order for mutation on the basis of the judgment of the Civil Court ought to have been passed which was however erroneously done by the Tehsildar by order dated 19.11.2019 as has rightly been held by the Additional Commissioner by way of the impugned order in which there is no illegality.

06. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The same is hereby affirmed as a result of which, the petition is dismissed.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE

Shilpa