Namrata Verma vs Kusum Verma
2024 Latest Caselaw 6 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Namrata Verma vs Kusum Verma on 2 January, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                          1                  M.P. No.405/2021


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. 405 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1.   NAMRATA VERMA D/O LATE SHRI GANESH
     PRASAD VERMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O BICHIYA
     WARD NO. 39 DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

2.   NEHA @ ADARSH VERMA D/O LATE GANESH
     PRASAD VERMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O INFRONT OF
     VICTORIYA HOSPITAL JABALPUR (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

3.   POONAM VERMA @ VANDANA VERMA D/O
     LATE GANESH PRASAD VERMA, AGED
     ABOUT     38    YEARS,   OCCUPATION:
     HOUSEWIFE R/O PANDEYEN TOLA NAGOD,
     DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            .....PETITIONERS
(NONE )

AND
1.   KUSUM VERMA W/O SHRI RAMGOPAL
     VERMA,    AGED    ABOUT   79  YEARS,
     OCCUPATION:    RETD.  EMPLOYEE   R/O
     GHOGHAR REWA DISTRICT REWA M.P
     PRESENTLY R/O KRISHNA NAGAR JAWAN
     SINGH COLONY SATNA TEHSIL SATAN,
     DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   ATUL KUMAR VERMA S/O UPENDRA VERMA,
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     PRIVATE R/O KRISHNA NAGAR JAWAN
     SINGH COLONY SATNA, DISTRICT SATNA
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   THE COMMISSIONER REWA (REVENUE)
     REWA DIVISION, REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                2                                             M.P. No.405/2021


4.       THE NAZOOL TEHSILDAR TAHSIL HUZUR
         DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI RAHIL MISHRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 )
............................................................................................................................................
           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 05.12.2020 passed by Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa in case No.71/Appeal/2020-21.

2. The necessary facts in short are that Ganesh Prasad Verma was the owner of the property in dispute. Respondent No.1, who claims herself to be the sister of Ganesh Prasad Verma, filed an application for mutation of her name after the death of Ganesh Prasad Verma on the strength of Will. Surprisingly a dead person was made a party in the application and legal heirs of Ganesh Prasad Verma were not made a party. The Nazul Tahsildar, Rewa by order dated 21.09.2015 allowed the application and recorded the name of respondent No.1 in place of Ganesh Prasad Verma. Petitioners preferred an appeal before Nazul Officer/SDO, Tahsil and District Rewa alongwith an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. However, by order dated 05.03.2020 their application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was dismissed and as a consequence thereof, the appeal was also dismissed.

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by SDO/Nazul Officer, petitioners preferred an appeal before Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, which was registered as Appeal No.71/Appeal/2020-21, which too has been dismissed.

4. The undisputed facts are that petitioners are the daughters of Ganesh Prasad Verma and they were not made a party to mutation proceedings. No notice was ever given to petitioners. The SDO (Revenue), District Rewa should have condoned the delay in filing an appeal because they were not a party before Nazul Tahsildar. However, application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act was dismissed. The Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa has upheld the order of mutation on the basis of Will purportedly executed by Ganesh Prasad Verma in favour of respondent No.1.

5. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the revenue authorities have any jurisdiction to mutate the name of propounder of a Will or not?

6. The question is no more res integra.

7. 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."

8. 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."

9. 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."

10. Thus, the order passed by Nazul Tahsildar, SDO as well as Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa are bad in law on the ground that mutation application was filed by impleading a dead person and his legal representatives were not made a party. Secondly, once the order of mutation was passed by Nazul Tahsildar in absence of petitioners, then they had a strong prima facie case for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. Thirdly, since revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to mutate the name of a person on the basis of Will, therefore also the application

filed by respondent No.1 for mutation of her name was liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

11. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for respondent No.1 that petitioners have also filed a civil suit.

12. Considered the submissions made by counsel for respondent No.1.

13. This Court has already come to a conclusion that application filed by respondent No.1 for mutation of her name on the strength of Will purportedly executed by Ganesh Prasad Verma was not maintainable as revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to record the name of propounder of Will. Admittedly, respondent No.1 has not filed any civil suit against petitioners for declaration of her title on the basis of Will. It is not known as to whether respondent No.1 has taken defence of Will in her written statement in a suit already filed by petitioners or not?

14. Under these circumstances, this petition is allowed. Orders dated 21.09.2015, 05.03.2020 and 05.12.2020 passed by Nazul Tahsildar, Rewa, SDO, Rewa and Commissioner, Rewa Division Rewa respectively are hereby set aside.

15. The Nazul Tahsildar is directed to mutate the names of petitioners in respect of property belonging to late Shri Ganesh Prasad Verma i.e. Plot No.573 area 0.08/1244 sq.ft. The said mutation shall be subject to final outcome of civil suit, which has already been filed by petitioners. Ultimately if respondent No.1 succeeds in establishing the Will purportedly executed by Ganesh Prasad Verma in her favour, then revenue authorities shall be under obligation to mutate the name of respondent No.1 but till then names of petitioners shall be mutated in the revenue records.

16. Since there is already an injunction order in the civil suit, therefore, it is directed that petitioners shall also not create any third party right interest till the civil litigation is finally disposed of.

17. Let the records be corrected within a period of one month from today.

18. Registry is directed to communicate this order immediately to Nazul Tahsildar, Tahsil Huzur, District Rewa for necessary information and compliance.

19. With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE SR*

Date: 2024.01.03 18:12:14 +05'30'