Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durgadas Chela Ramkinker Das Fout ... vs Dr. Satendra Singh Collector on 22 May, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 22 nd OF MAY, 2024
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 2117 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
DURGADAS CHELA RAMKINKER DAS FOUT
L.A.S.CHELA YUGAL PRASAD PATHAK S/O NOT
MENTOIN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PUJARI MANDIR BIRSINGHPUR TAHSIL RAGHURAJ
NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UMESH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. DR. SATENDRA SINGH COLLECTOR COLLECTOR
COLLECTOR SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI MANISH PANDEY TEHSILDAR CIRCLE
JAITWARA TEHSIL BIRSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is a contempt petition arising out of an order dated 06.08.2018
passed in M.P. No.3260/2018.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that one Durgadas Chela
Ramkinker Das filed a suit before the trial Court. The said suit was decreed and
Mahant Durgadas Chela Ramkinker Das was declared as Vyasthapak of the
property situated on Khasra No.557 area 7.40 acers including Madan Mohan
Judeo Temple situated on the same village Paragkala Tehsil Raghuraj Nagar
District Satna. Apart from the aforesaid direction, it was further declared that
the revenue records be accordingly, amended and wherever in the revenue
records, the Collector is mentioned as Vyasthapak, such entry be deleted. It is
contended by the counsel that for implementation of the said order, an
execution case was filed. However, the Executing Court vide order dated
28.04.2018 observed that any addition or deletion in the revenue entry is not
within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and in terms of Section 257 (च) of Land
Revenue Code, the jurisdiction was with the Revenue Court. The order passed
by the Executing Court was assailed by the present applicant by filing a petition
before this Court vide M.P. No.3260/2018. This Court vide order dated
07.08.2018, did not interfere with the impugned order, however, the applicant
was extended liberty to move a proper application along with decree before the
respective Revenue Authority, who in turn were directed to implement the same
within the reasonable period. Despite the said order, the revenue entries were
not corrected.
3. It is contended by the counsel that there is flagrant violation of the
order passed by this Court inasmuch as, the respondents had no other option
but to implement the decree in terms of the order passed by this Court in M.P.
No.3260/2018 and as per the decree, the corrections in the revenue record are
imperative. It is further contended by the counsel that vide Annexure-C/04, an
application has been brought on record which reflects that the Authorities were
requested to implement the decree, however no action has been taken.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that contempt
petition filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed. It is contended by the
counsel that in the present case, firstly the present applicant did not file any suit.
A suit was filed by the original plaintiff Durgadas Chela Ramkinker Das. The
present applicant while claiming himself to be a legal heir of Late Durgadas
Chela Ramkinker Das and has filed this petition. It is contended by the counsel
that the present applicant is claiming his right on the basis of "Will" and the
validity of Will cannot be gone into by the Revenue Authorities. This aspect
was elaborately dealt with by Sub Divisional Officer, Satna and a detailed report
was submitted by Sub Divisional Officer, Satna dated 07.03.2020 which is
contained in Annexure-R/1 and on the basis of the said record the Collector-
cum-District Magistrate, Satna passed an order dated 07.04.2020 which is also
contained in Annexure-R/1.
5. It is contended by the counsel that the order of Collector dated
07.04.2020 was assailed by the present applicant by filing an appeal and the
appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2023 which is contained
in Annexure-R/1. It is contended by the counsel that simultaneously along with
the present contempt petition, the present applicant was pursuing the Revenue
Authority which is evident from perusal of Annexure-R/1 and R/2, and
therefore, submits that as the Collector has passed a well-reasoned order and
has also observed that the original plaintiff has already expired in whose favour
there was a decree, the application of the applicant has been turned down.
6. No other point is pressed or argued by the counsel for the parties.
7. Heard the submissions and perused the record.
8. In the present case, the applicant is precisely seeking implementation
of the decree passed by the Civil Court. The operative portion of the decree is
reproduced herein:-
1. यह घोिषत िकया जाता है िक ाम पगारकला तह. रधु. जला सतना
थत मदन मोहन मुिदर क भूिम ख. लं . - 557 रकवा - 7.40 एकड का य था
एक मंहत दगु ादास चला राम ककर दास है ।
2. उ भूिम से संबं धत भू अिभले खो मे जहा जहा संसोधन कर
यव था पक कले टर लखा गया है उस िवि का िनर त िकया जाता है ।
3. ितवादी के खलाफ यह थायी िनषेधा ा जारी क जाती है िक वह
वाद त भूिम बाबत बंध करने के दगु ादास के अ धकार के िकसी के ारा
कराएग
4. वादी इस दावे का संपूण खच ितवादी से ससूल करने का अ धकारी
है ।
5. अ धव ा शु क माण प का वुची अनुसार दोनेा के जो भी कम ही
जोड़ा जाय।
9. A perusal of the aforesaid decree reflects that the Civil Court decreed
the suit and declared that the original plaintiff Mahant Durgadas Chela
Ramkinker Das is Vyasthapak of the aforesaid temple as well as the land on
which it is situated. It was further mentioned in paragraph 2 that the entry
pertaining to Collector as Vyasthapak be deleted wherever the same is
mentioned in the revenue records and the further direction was against the
defendants to not to interfere with the functioning of original plaintiff as
Vyasthapak.
10. A perusal of the said decree reflects that the suit in question was filed
by Durgadas Chela Ramkinker Das and the suit was decreed. The present
contempt petition has been filed by one Yugal Prasad Pathak while claiming
himself to be legal hires of Late Durgadas Chela Ramkinker Das, who had
expired after passing of the judgment and decree by the Civil Court. The
present applicant is claiming his right as regards the property in question on the
basis of a "Will" which according to applicant was executed by Late Durgadas
Chela Ramkinker Das in favour of the present applicant.
11. At this juncture, if the decree is perused carefully, the same would
reveal that there was a declaration in favour of original plaintiff and he was
declared Vyasthapak of the property as detailed herein above and defendants
were also restrained from interfering with the functioning of the original plaintiff
a s Vyasthapak. The decree nowhere stipulated that the property would be
recorded in the name of original plaintiff Durgadas Chela Ramkinker Das.
Though there is a direction to delete entry pertaining to Collector as
Vyasthapak as regards the property, however there are no directions in the
decree to mutate name of the original plaintiff or anyone.
12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, if the application submitted by the
applicant vide Anneuxre-C/4 which has been filed with the rejoinder is taken into
consideration, the same would reveal that in the application the present applicant
has prayed for deletion of entry pertaining to Collector and has also made a
prayer for recording of his name as regards the property in question. It is
evidently clear from perusal of the decree that there was no direction for
recording of name of the original plaintiff in the revenue records secondly, the
present applicant was undisputedly was not plaintiff and is seeking execution of
a decree while claiming himself to be a legal heir of Late Durgadas Chela
Ramkinker Das. The said stand is based on a "Will" and undisputedly, the
Revenue Authorities rightly observed that the validity of "Will" can only be
considered by the Civil Court. Even, otherwise the Apex Court in the case
of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh - 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802
has held that mutation cannot be claimed on the basis of a "Will".
13. The Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra) in paras 6, 7
& 8 has observed as under:-
6. It is not in dispute that the dispute is with respect to mutation
entry in the revenue records. The petitioner herein submitted an
application to mutate his name on the basis of the alleged will
dated 20.05.1998 executed by Smt. Ananti Bai. Even, according
to the petitioner also, Smt. Ananti Bai died on 27.08.2011. From
the record, it emerges that the application before the Nayab
Tehsildar was made on 9.8.2011, i.e., before the death of Smt.
Ananti Bai. It cannot be disputed that the right on the basis of
the will can be claimed only after the death of the executant of
the will. Even the will itself has been disputed. Be that as it may,
as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not
confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the
mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal
purpose. As per the settled proposition of law, if there is any
dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the
mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of the will, the
party who is claiming title/right on the basis of the will has to
approach the appropriate civil court/court and get his rights
crystalised and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before
the civil court necessary mutation entry can be made.
7. 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.
8. 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.
14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the
Collector did not commit any error in passing the order dated 07.04.2020
(Annexure-R/1) and the said order is based on the report submitted by the
SDO. The said report in the considered view of this Court is well reasoned and
takes care of each and every issue which have been raised by the present
applicant in the present contempt petition.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no case for
initiating contempt proceedings is made out against the applicant.
16. Accordingly, the present contempt petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
mn
