Sohrab Ali vs Smt. Sitara Bi
2024 Latest Caselaw 55 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sohrab Ali vs Smt. Sitara Bi on 2 January, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                           1


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. 2772 of 2022

BETWEEN:-

1.    SOHRAB ALI S/O LATE SHAHID ALI KHAN,
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      STUDENT V.V. GIRI WARD, BIHIND JAY
      HIND SCSHOOL, PIPARIYA, DISTRICT
      HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.    SOHIL ALI S/O LATE SHAHID ALI (KHAN),
      AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      STUDENT R/O V.V. GIRI WARD, BIHIND JAY
      HIND SCSHOOL, PIPARIYA, DISTRICT
      HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.    SMT. RUKSANA BI W/O LATE SHAHID ALI
      (KHAN), AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O V.V.
      GIRI WARD, BIHIND JAY HIND SCSHOOL,
      PIPARIYA,  DISTRICT   HOSHANGABAD
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                  .....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SOURABH SONI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    SMT. SITARA BI W/O LATE SHAHID ALI
      KAHN,    AGED   ABOUT   58   YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE JAYPRAKASH
      WARD     ITWARA   BAZAR    PIPARIYA
      HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SHAFIK ALI S/O LATE SHAHID ALI (KHAN)
      (DEAD) KAUSHAR NISHSHA W/O SHAFIK
      ALI R/O JAYPRAKASH WARD ITWARA
      BAZAR     PIPARIYA     HOSHANGABAD
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                    2


   3.   MUSHID ALI S/O LATE SHAFIK ALI R/O
        JAYPRAKASH WARD ITWARA BAZAR
        PIPARIYA  HOSHANGABAD     (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

   4.   MUSAIF ALI S/O LATE SHAFIK ALI R/O
        JAYPRAKASH WARD ITWARA BAZAR
        PIPARIYA  HOSHANGABAD     (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

   5.   RAFIK ALI S/O LATE SHAHID ALI (KHAN),
        AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        NOT KNOWN R/O JAYPRAKASH WARD
        ITWARA BAZAR PIPARIYA HOSHANGABAD
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

   6.   YASMIN D/O LATE SHAHID ALI (KHAN),
        AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        NOT KNOWN R/O JAYPRAKASH WARD
        ITWARA BAZAR PIPARIYA HOSHANGABAD
        (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
    (BY SHRI MOHD. ADIL USMANI - ADVOCATE)

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

   the following:

                                    ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 20.3.2020 passed by S.D.O., Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in case no.22/Appeal/2019-2020 and order dated 30.12.2021 passed by Commissioner, Hoshangabad in case no.25/Appeal/2020-21.

2. According to the petitioners, they filed an application for mutation of their names on the basis of Will executed by their father late Shahid

Khan. The said application was allowed by Tahsildar and the names of the petitioners were mutated.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal which was allowed by the SDO, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad by order dated 20.3.2020. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner, Hoshangabad was dismissed.

4. The moot question for consideration is as to whether mutation of a person can be done on the basis of a Will or not?

5. This question is no more res-intergra.

6. 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."

9. 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."

10. 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."

7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that mutation of the names of the petitioners on the basis of Will executed by their father was rightly set-aside by SDO as well as Commissioner. Accordingly, aforesaid orders are hereby affirmed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for establishing their right on the basis of the Will. If civil suit is filed then the Civil Court is directed to decide the same strictly in accordance with the evidence which would come on record and shall not get prejudiced or influenced by any of the findings recorded by the revenue authorities in this regard.

8. With aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE

JP JITENDRA KUMAR Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH INDORE, 2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf019e0b76f6fc652f893c6324a2f64a5a, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,

PAROUHA serialNumber=627378D3EE51220F5E81130EECF5ABBEC55EBB6B78033E5FF10402B19143AD99 , cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2024.01.02 05:32:29 -08'00'