Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mangilal vs Shankarlal S/O Shri Mangilal ... on 9 May, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 1721 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
MANGILAL S/O SHRI NARAYAN PATIDAR, AGED ABOUT
55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL-
PACHLASI, TEH KHACHROD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
( BY SHRI MAKBOOL AHMAD MANSOORI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. SHANKARLAL S/O SHRI MANGILAL (DECEASED)
THR. LRS. INDRABAI W/O SHRI SHANKARLAL,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILL-PACHLASI, TEH.
KHACHROD (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHANKARLAL S/O SHRI MANGILAL (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS SHIVNARAYAN S/O SHRI
SHANKARLAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL. PACHLASI,
TEH. KHACHROD, DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHANKARLAL S/O SHRI MANGILAL (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS NAGESHWAR S/O SHRI
SHANKARLAL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL. PACHLASI,
TEH. KHACHROD, DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SHANKARLAL S/O SHRI MANGILAL (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS SITA BAI W/O CHANDARSINGH
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL. BARBELA,
TEH. BADNAGAR, DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SHANKARLAL S/O SHRI MANGILAL (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS VISHNU BAI W/O PRAKASH
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL. BIKAMPUR,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 09-05-2024
18:24:07
2
TEH. KHACHROD, DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. SHANKARLAL S/O SHRI MANGILAL (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS BHULI BAI W/O GOPAL
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL. BADGAON,
TEH. KHACHROD, DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. SHANKARLAL S/O SHRI MANGILAL (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS JANI BAI W/O PARAS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL. NEEMAN,
TEH. JAORA, DIST. RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner finally.
2. The petitioner has preferred present petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05/03/2021
passed in Case no. 577/ Appeal/ 2015-16 by Additional Commissioner, Ujjain
Division, Ujjain, whereby further proceedings of the appeal has been dropped.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute in the instant case pertains
to the mutation in revenue record related to the agricultural land bearing Survey
no. 305/1 area 0.83 hectare, situated at Village Pachlasi, Tehsil Khachrod,
District - Ujjain.
4. The petitioner preferred an application under Sections 109 and 110
of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tehsildar Khachrod seeking
mutation of his name in the revenue record on the said land on the basis of the
registered sale deed. The Tehsildar vide order dated 24/01/2014 allowed the
mutation application submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the said order was
challenged by the respondents by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Khachrod and the S.D.O. allowed the same by reversing the mutation
order. Then, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal under section 44 (2) of
M.P Land Revenue Code before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Ujjain
Division, Ujjain, but the Additional Commissioner, in view of an interim order
dated 15/09/2019 passed by this Court in SA 1735/2019, closed the case of
appeal preferred by the petitioner without any decision. Being aggrieved by the
said order, the petitioner has preferred present petition before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders
passed by the Additional Commissioner and the SDO are illegal and against the
law and facts. The Additional Commissioner has committed grave error of law
by not considering the fact that final judgment regarding controversy of
possession between the parties in respect of the land in question has been
pronounced in favour of the petitioner by the first Appellate Court holding the
petitioner to be in possession of the land. The impugned orders are bad in law
and not sustainable, Hence the impugned orders passed by the Additional
Commissioner and the SDO be set aside.
6. Despite service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the
respondents.
7. From perusal of the record, it appears that in respect of the suit land,
civil suit is still pending between both the parties. Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Second Appeal no. 1735/2019, vide order dated 15/09/2019 directed
that till the next date of hearing, the parties shall maintain status-quo in respect
of possession of the suit land as it existed on that day. Question of title
regarding the suit land has been challenged before the competent Civil Court,
which is still pending.
8. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court n the case of Kusum Bai and Ors.
Vs. Umedibai passed in Misc. Petition No.23/2021 decided on
16.02.2021, Smt. Ramkali and Banmali and Ors. order dated
07.02.2021 and Shalini Shyam Shetty and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Shankar Patil
(2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that "the revenue Courts under the MP Land
Revenue Code are not having any jurisdiction to decide the dispute in respect
of the title of property in question." Therefore, the Additional Commissioner,
Ujjain Division, Ujjain has rightly passed the impugned order by dropping the
proceedings of the appeal.
9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, as no patent illegality has been
committed by the below Revenue Authorities and the orders passed by the
below Revenue Authorities do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, therefore,
this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
10. Accordingly, present Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India is hereby dismissed.
CC as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
amol
