Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Savita (Adwasi) Ahirwar vs Rajendra Singh on 5 March, 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 5 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 998 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SAVITA (ADWASI) AHIRWAR D/O HIRA LAL
ADIWASI W/O SUNIL AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 33
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O GRAM
PATERIYA, TEHSIL PATERA, DISTRICT DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O MAHARAJ SINGH R/O
VILLAGE SAGONI, TEHSIL PATERA, DISTRICT
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. POORAN SINGH S/O NANNU SAHU R/O VILLAGE
SAGONI TEHSIL PATERA DISTRICT DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed
against order dated 02.01.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar
Division Sagar in Appeal No.46/Appeal/2023-24 by which Additional
Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar has dismissed the appeal filed by
petitioner and has affirmed order dated 31.03.2023 passed by SDO (Revenue)
Hata, District Damoh in Appeal No.39/Appeal/year 2022-23.
2. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner filed an application before Naib
Tahsildar, Kumhari, Tahsil Patera, District Damoh on the ground that name of
Heeralal Gond S/o Nannu Lal is recorded in the revenue records, who has
expired on 16.12.1989. Heeralal was the father of petitioner, therefore, the name
of petitioner be recorded in the revenue records in the capacity of his
successor. The Naib Tahsildar by order dated 08.02.2021 passed in Revenue
Case No.370/A-6/2020-21 directed for mutation of name of petitioner in place
of Heeralal Gond. The respondents being aggrieved by aforesaid order
preferred two different appeals before SDO (Revenue), Hata, District Damoh,
which were allowed and order passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Kumhari, Tahsil
Patera, District Damoh was set aside. Accordingly, petitioner preferred an
appeal before Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar, which has been
dismissed by the impugned order.
3. Challenging the order passed by the authorities below, it is submitted by
counsel for petitioner that the moot question for consideration is as to whether
petitioner is the daughter of Heeralal Gond or not? It is submitted that petitioner
was prosecuted for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 of IPC in
S.T. No.300083/2012 and by judgment dated 29.11.2018, she has been
acquitted and therefore, it is submitted that there is already a judicial verdict in
favour of petitioner that she is the daughter of Heeralal Gond and therefore, the
SDO as well as the Additional Commissioner committed a material illegality by
not mutating the name of petitioner in place of Heeralal Gond.
4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.
5. It is well established principle of law that findings recorded by the criminal
Court are not binding on the civil Court because the degree of proof in both the
cases is completely different. In criminal Court the allegations are required be
proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the civil disputes are decided on the
basis of preponderance of probabilities. Merely because petitioner has been
acquitted in a criminal case on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove
t h e guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, then that by itself is not
sufficient to hold that petitioner has been held to be the daughter of Heeralal
Gond. The Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar has held that no
document has been filed and no reason has been assigned as to why no
proceedings for mutation of name of petitioner were initiated immediately after
the death of Heeralal and why she took 34 years to move such an application.
Earlier an application for mutation was filed, which was already rejected by
order dated 31.07.2020 and therefore, second application was not maintainable.
In the voter list, the name of widow of Heeralal was Phoolrani, whereas
petitioner has disclosed the name of her mother as Mohan Bai. Accordingly, the
Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar came to a conclusion that
petitioner has failed to prove that she is the daughter of Heeralal and is not liable
to get her name mutated in the revenue records on the basis succession.
6. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no
case is made out warranting interference.
7. However, liberty is granted to petitioner that if she so desires, then she can
file a civil suit for declaration that she is the daughter of Heeralal Gond. In case
if the suit is filed, then the mutation shall be subject to final outcome of civil
litigation.
8. With aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
SR*
Date: 2024.03.15 17:30:47 +05'30'
