Madhya Pradesh High Court
Himanshu Shrivastava vs Additional Commissioner on 4 March, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.P.No.4812/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 4th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 4812 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
HIMANSHU SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHRI A.K.
SHRIVASTAVA OCCUPATION:
ARCHITECT R/O 1629 KHANU GAON
BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NISHANT AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DR. A. K. SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHRI
BADRINATAYAN SHRIVASTAVA R/O
B-95/SPM NAGAR VIDISHA
DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. VIKAS SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHRI
BADRINARAYAN SHRIVASTAVA
R/O B-95/SPM NAGAR VIDISHA
DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. HARHAINESS MEHARTAJ
SHAZIDA SULTAN BEGUM (SINCE
DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
NAWAB MANSOOR ALI KHAN
PATAUDI (SINCE DEAD)
THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS
4.A. SMT. SHARMILA TAIGORE W/O
LATE NAWAB MANSOOR ALI
KHAN PATAUDI B-2 / IV BASANT
VIHAR NEW DELHI (DELHI)
2 M.P.No.4812/2022
4.B. SHOHA ALI KHAN D/O LATE
NAWAB MANSOOR ALI KHAN
PATAUDI B-2 / IV BASANT VIHAR
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
4.C. SHOBA ALI D/O LATE NAWAB
MANSOOR ALI KHAN B-2 / IV
BASANT VIHAR NEW DELHI
(DELHI)
4.D. SAIF ALIK KHAN S/O LATE
NAWAB MANSOOR ALI KHAN
PATAUDI B-2 / IV BASANT VIHAR
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
5. GENERAL PUBLIC NOT MENTION
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SWATI ASEEM GEORGE - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
...................................................................................................
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 the order dated 26.8.2022 and 4.7.2022 passed by
Additional Commissioner, Bhopal in Appeal No.1150/Appeal/2021-
22 and Review Application No.8/Review/2022-23.
2. According to the petitioner, Her Highness Nawab Sazida
Sultan Begum, who was the ruler of Bhopal, was recorded as owner
in the revenue records. She executed an unregistered gift deed in
favour of Basantilal and Balram. Basantilal and Balram in their turn
executed a sale deed in favour of Shri Badri Narayan Shrivastava,
the grandfather of the petitioner. Shri Badri Narayan Shrivastava
expired on 19.6.2002. Thereafter, his widow i.e. grand-mother of the
petitioner namely Smt. Prakashwati Shrivastava executed a
registered will in favour of the petitioner on 19.08.2003.
Smt.Prakashwati Shrivastava expired on 24.01.2005. Thereafter, the
petitioner moved an application on 12.04.2021 for mutation of his
name on the basis of will. The said application was rejected by
Tahsildar, Sant Hirdaram Nagar, Nazul, Bairagarh, Circle Bhopal on
27.08.2021 in Case No.76/A-6/2021-22. One of the grounds for
rejection of the said application was that the petitioner had not
clarified that how Basantilal and Balram, who had alienated the
property to Shri Badri Narayan Shrivastava, got the title.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before SDO, Sant Hirdaram Nagar, Nazul, Bairagarh, Circle
Bhopal. The said appeal was registered as Case No.61/Appeal/2021-
22 and the same has been dismissed by SDO by order dated
07.01.2022 on the ground that the gift deed was mandatorily
registrable and no title would pass on to Basantilal and Balram on
the basis of unregistered gift deed. Since Basantilal and Balram had
no title therefore they cannot alienate any title better than what they
were having. Under these circumstances it was held that the name of
the petitioner is not liable to be mutated and accordingly the appeal
was dismissed.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division,
Bhopal, which was dismissed by order dated 04.07.2022 in Case
No.1150/Appeal/2021-2022. The review filed by the petitioner,
which was registered as Case No.8/review/22-23 has also been
dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal
by order dated 26.08.2022.
5. Challenging the orders passed by the authorities below, it a
submitted by counsel for petitioner that although an unregistered gift
deed was executed by Nawab Sazida Sultan Begum, who was the
ruler of Bhopal, but no objection has been raised by anybody.
Therefore, the title was validly transferred to Basantilal and Balram
and under these circumstances it is submitted that the sale deed
executed by Basantilal and Balram in favour of his grandfather Badri
Narayan Shrivtastava was valid and by virtue of registered sale deed,
his grandfather became the owner of the land in dispute.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Section 17 of Registration Act provides that registration of
instrument of gift of immovable property is compulsory. Thus, it is
clear that by unregistered gift deed, no right or title stood transferred
in favour of Basantilal and Balram (this finding has been given
without affirming as to whether any gift deed was ever executed by
Nawab Sazida Sultan Begum in favour of Basantilal and Balram or
not?)
8. It is well established principal of law that a seller cannot
transfer a title better than what he himself has. Since Basantilal and
Balram did not get any title by virtue of an unregistered gift deed,
therefore, even if they had executed a registered sale deed in favour
of Badri Narayan Shrivastava, still no title can be said to have passed
on to Badri Narayan Shrivastava for the simple reason that his sellers
did not have any title in the said property.
9. It is well established principle of law that even if no objection
is raised by the parties, still the mandatory provisions of law cannot
be waived.
10. There is another aspect of the matter. After the death of Badri
Narayan Shrivastava, his property would dwell upon his legal heirs
including widow and children. Thus, after the death of Badri
Narayan Shrivastava, even otherwise, his wife would get only one
third share in the property. Therefore, she could not have executed a
will in favour of the petitioner in respect of the entire property.
11. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that other legal
representatives of Badri Narayan Shrivastava had expressed their no
objection in writing. However, there cannot be any relinquishment of
rights without any registered document. Furthermore, in the light of
judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra
Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2021
SCC Online 802, mutation of name on the basis of will is beyond
the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities.
12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this
case, this Court is of considered opinion that since Basantilal and
Balram did not get any title by virtue of the unregistered gift deed
purportedly executed by her Highness Nawab Sazida Sultan Begum,
therefore, no title had passed on to Badri Narayan Srivastava by
virtue of registered sale deed dated 14.02.1969.
13. Accordingly, the authorities below did not commit any mistake
by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of his
name.
14. Ex consequenti, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S.AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
TG/-
TRUPTI GUNJAL
2024.03.06 11:43:20
+05'30'
