Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal vs Rambai on 18 February, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4577
1 MP-6343-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 6343 of 2019
KAMAL AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMBAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Phadke - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Akash Rathi - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated
09.08.2018 [Annexure P/1] passed by Board of Revenue whereby orders
passed by authorities below have been set aside and the matter has been
remanded back to the Tehsildar.
3. On the basis of an application filed by petitioner No.3 an order for
mutation was passed by the Tehsildar on 15.09.2000. Being aggrieved by the
said order, an appeal was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer which
was dismissed by him by order dated 30.07.2015. Second Appeal against the
said order was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Indore
Division, Indore which was also dismissed by order dated 08.09.2015. The
said order was assailed by respondents 1 and 2 by preferring a revision
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4577
2 MP-6343-2019
before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed by the impugned order.
4. The Board of Revenue has observed that the mutation order which
was passed on the Namantaranpanji is interpolated. Over the disputed land
Sitaram, Sevaram and Mulchand were recorded. However, the sale deed
appears to have been executed only by Mulchand. The other co-khatedar
were not even heard in the matter. Thus, respondents 1 to 4 who are heirs of
Sitaram were not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Based on the said
reasons the orders passed by the authorities below have been set aside and
the matter has been remanded back to the Tehsildar.
5. It is not in dispute between the parties that respondents 1, 2, 3 and
Ramabai had preferred a Civil Suit against Mulchand and others including
the petitioners for declaration that the sale deed executed by Mulchand is null
and void. In that suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties except
respondent No.3 Mukesh. Though the compromise was recorded by the trial
Court but observing that in absence of Mukesh the Civil Suit cannot be
decided no decree was passed. Thereafter, the Civil Suit was decided by
judgment and decree dated 25.07.2017. The suit was dismissed for want of
evidence. The compromise entered into between the parties was also
rejected.
6 . In the Civil Suit the factum of entering into a compromise by the
plaintiffs therein except Mukesh was taken into consideration. It was also
observed that Dinesh has not led any evidence in support of his case. The
judgement and decree was passed by the trial Court on 25.07.2017 whereas
the impugned order was passed by the Board of Revenue on 09.08.2018
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4577
3 MP-6343-2019
which is subsequent thereto. However, from perusal of the entire order
passed by the Board of Revenue, it is evident that the factum of institution of
the suit between the parties and the proceedings thereof were not brought to
the notice of the Board by either of the parties. In my opinion, the said Civil
Suit, the proceedings of the same and the judgement therein have a material
bearing upon the dispute between the parties. Had they been brought to the
knowledge of the Board an effective determination of the dispute could have
been done. It could have been decided there itself instead of remanding the
matter back to the Tehsildar. Since the Civil Suit has been decided during
pendency the proceedings before the Board of Revenue there is no
justification for remanding the matter back to the Tehsildar. However, it is
also observed that subsequent to the order passed by the Board of Revenue
its power of revision has been curtailed and as per amended Section 50 of
MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 a revision is not maintainable against an
order passed in a Second Appeal. In the present case also the revision had
been preferred before the Board against an order passed in Second Appeal.
7. Thus, in the available facts and circumstances of the case interest of
justice would be subserved if the matter is remanded back to the Additional
Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore for fresh determination of second
Appeal before him. Consequently, the impugned order dated 09.08.2018,
passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the Additional Commission, Indore Division, Indore to
restore the Second Appeal preferred before him and to re-decide the same in
accordance with law. The parties shall be at liberty to produce all documents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4577
4 MP-6343-2019
in support of their respective contentions including the documents and the
proceedings of the Civil Suit. However, it is made clear that this Court has
not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
