Rasheed vs Ajeej
2024 Latest Caselaw 13597 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rasheed vs Ajeej on 10 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 10 th OF MAY, 2024
                                              MISC. PETITION No. 1106 of 2021

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RASHEED S/O KAMAAL PATEL, AGED ADULT,
                           OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O 42 GOYA ROAD,
                           KHAJRANA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI AKSHAY BHONDE - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           AJEEJ S/O SHRI IDA OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST,
                           R/O NEAR MASJID, KHAJRANA, INDORE(MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI PUSHPENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN - ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30/12/2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Indore in Case No.41/Revision/2019-20, whereby revision has been allowed.

3. The facts of the case are in brief are that petitioner has filed an application for mutating his name in respect of the suit land, which belongs to his father Kamaal Patel, who has been died on 02/06/2010. The Tehsildar has

directed both the parties to adduce their evidence and during the cross-

examination of the petitioner, Tehsildar has directed the petitioner to file certain documents. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred a revision before the Additional Collector, Indore, but the same has been allowed by giving a direction that there is a dispute between both the parties regarding title of the suit land. Hence, parties are directed to obtain probate from the competent civil Court.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has impleaded all the legal representatives of the deceased as a party and filed all the relevant documents, but the below revenue authority has ignored the provisions as contained in Section 50, 109-110 and 164 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code.

Impugned order is against the law and facts. Hence, he prays that impugned order be set aside.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gouri Bahu Through LR Smt. Sashidevi Vs. Gopal Das reported in 2008 (II) MPWN 108.

6. Counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, Indore is just and proper and not deserve for any interference.

7. Both the parties heard at length and perused the entire record with due care.

8. From perusal of the order passed by the Tehsildar and the Additional Collector, it appears that there is a dispute between both the parties regarding title over the suit land.

9. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 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, Indore has rightly passed the impugned order by stating that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the correctness and genuineness of the will.

10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a simple case of mutation. There is a dispute between the legal representatives of deceased Kamaal Patel regarding the title over the suit land. Whether the suit land belongs to Kamaal Patel or it is a government land is in dispute, therefore, there is material question of title, which can be decided only by civil Court. Revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the question of title.

11. In the light of aforesaid analysis, as no patent illegality has been committed by the below Revenue Authorities and the order passed by the below Revenue Authorities does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders.

12. Accordingly, this petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed by affirming the impugned order dated 30/12/2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Indore, which is related to the mutation of the name deceased Kamaal Patel in respect of the suit land.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej