Madhya Pradesh High Court
Zakir Hussain vs Bajir Baksh on 2 January, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 MP No.4385/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 2nd OF JANUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 4385 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. ZAKIR HUSSAIN S/O SUKURULLA BAKSH
MUSALMAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BADHNAI TEHSIL CHITRANGI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SALEEM BAKSH S/O SUKURULLA BAKSH
MUSALMAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BADHNAI TEHSIL CHITRANGI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI FALGUN YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BAJIR BAKSH S/O LAL MOHAMMED
MUSALMAN R/O DEVGAVAN TEHSIL DEVSAR
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. LAL MOHAMMED S/O SUKURULLA BAKSH
MUSALMAN R/O DEVGAVAN TEHSIL DEVSAR
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BARKAT ALI S/O ABDUL REHMAN R/O
VILLAGE BADHNAI TEHSIL CHITRANGI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MINNAR BAKSH S/O ABDUL REHMAN R/O
VILLAGE BADHNAI TEHSIL CHITRANGI
2 MP No.4385/2022
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BASEER BAKSH W/O SUKURULLA
BAKSUKURULLA BAKSH MUSALMANSH R/O
VILLAGE BADHNAI TEHSIL CHITRANGI
DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. HANEEF BAKSH S/O SUKURULLA BAKSH
MUSALMAN R/O VILLAGE BADHNAI TEHSIL
CHITRANGI DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. GANI BAKSH S/O SUKURULLA BAKSH
MUSALMAN R/O VILLAGE BADHNAI TEHSIL
CHITRANGI DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. DEEN MOHAMMED S/O SUKURULLA BAKSH
MUSALMAN R/O VILLAGE BADHNAI TEHSIL
CHITRANGI DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. MEHDI HUSSAIN S/O CHOTTE BAKSH
MUSALMAN R/O VILLAGE BADHNAI TEHSIL
CHITRANGI DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. MANJOOD BAHMAD S/O CHOTTE BAKSH
MUSALMAN R/O VILLAGE BADHNAI TEHSIL
CHITRANGI DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANKESH MISHRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
3 MP No.4385/2022
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been
filed against order dated 02.09.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner,
Rewa Division, Rewa in Appeal No.439/Appeal/2019-20 by which appeal
filed by respondents Nos.1 to 5 has been allowed.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that respondents preferred
an application for mutation of their names on the basis of Will. Tehsildar,
Tehsil Devsar, District Singrauli by order dated 24.04.2003 passed in Case
No.52-A-6/2002-03 directed for mutation of names of respondents on the
basis of Will.
3. Being aggrieved by said order, petitioners preferred an appeal
alongwith an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The delay in
filing the appeal was condoned and S.D.O. Devsar, District Singrauli by
order dated 24.10.2019 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed
by Tehsildar.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondents preferred an appeal
before Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa which was registered as Case
No.439/Appeal/2019-20 and the same was allowed and order passed by
Tehsildar, Tehsil Devsar, District Singrauli was restored and order passed
by S.D.O. Devsar, District Singrauli was set aside.
5. Challenging the order passed by Commissioner, Rewa Dvision,
Rewa, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that it is well established
principle of law that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to mutate the
name of beneficiary on the basis of Will.
6. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent No.1 that once
a person has acquired title on the strength of Will, then there was nothing
wrong for the Tehsildar to mutate the names of respondents.
7. Heard learned counsel for parties.
8. Whether the revenue authorities have jurisdiction to mutate the
name of a person on the basis of Will or not is no more res-integra.
9. 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."
10. 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."
11. 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."
12. Accordingly, this Court is of considered opinion that application
filed by respondents for mutation of their names on the basis of Will was
not maintainable. Accordingly, order dated 02.09.2022 passed by
Additional Commissioner, Rewa in Case No.439/Appeal/2019-20 is
hereby set aside. The order dated 24.10.2019 passed by S.D.O. Devsar,
District Singrauli in Case No.62/Appeal/2017-18 is hereby restored
although on different ground.
13. However, liberty is granted to respondents that if so desired, then
they may file a civil suit for declaration of title on the basis of Will. If such
suit is filed, then the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with
evidence which would come on record without getting influenced or
prejudiced by any of the finding given by any of the revenue authority.
14. With aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
vc
VARSHA
CHOUR
2.5.4.20=f460d4685ef5a4622238f0b5
9b78c2407fd3ee2f619d9ce8e428c22
4c23ec8ac, postalCode=482001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=A0506346908D8FDC4
ASIYA
A2DA9968A85B01E1D95EF7D163055
3560798626817C4267, cn=VARSHA
CHOURASIYA
Date: 2024.01.03 18:50:45 +05'30'
