Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Mamata Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4576
1 WP-24873-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 24873 of 2024
SMT MAMATA CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Anita Jain - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Veer Kumar Jain - Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the
respondent.
Shri Garvit Singh appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Adarsh Jain - Advocate for the respondent (R-5).
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 14.05.2024
passed by the Additional Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore affirming
the order dated 06.07.2019 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Sub Division Rau, District Indore who had affirmed the order dated
18.07.2018 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Rau, Indore
whereby application under Sections 109, 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code,
1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') preferred by respondents No.5
and 6 had been allowed.
02. Respondents No.5 and 6 had filed an application under Sections
109, 110 of the Code, before the Tehsildar for mutation of their names over
the disputed land bearing Survey No.22/2 area 1.144 hectare i.e. 2.83 acre
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4576
2 WP-24873-2024
submitting that they have purchased the same by way of a registered sale
deed dated 26.12.2005 from Suresh Choudhary. Upon filing of the
application, a case was duly registered by the Tehsildar and notice inviting
objection was issued pursuant to which an objection was preferred by the
petitioners stating that the sale deed had been executed by Suresh Choudhary
without their consent. He alone was not the exclusive owner of the same. At
the time of the sale deed having been executed by him, a civil litigation in the
shape of First Appeal No.81 of 1999 was pending before this Court in which
an interim order had been passed on 14.09.2001, hence, the sale deed is null
and void for declaration of the same as such Civil Suit No.136-A/2016 has
already been preferred before Civil Judge Class-II, Indore in which
injunction order has been passed on 19.12.2017. Thus respondents No.5 and
6 have not acquired any title on the basis of the sale deed executed in their
favour.
03. The authorities below have held that on the date of execution of
the sale deed, Suresh Choudhary was recorded over the disputed land in the
revenue records as Bhumiswami hence had the right to sell the same. If
anyone has any objection as regards the sale deed, he ought to get the same
set aside by competent Civil Court. No such decree has been passed as yet
hence on the basis of the sale deed, respondents No.5 and 6 are entitled for
being mutated over the disputed land. There is no order passed by any Court
restraining mutation proceedings. On such findings, the mutation application
of respondents No.5 and 6 has been allowed.
04. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4576
3 WP-24873-2024
parties and have perused the record.
05. The authorities below have concurrently held that respondents
No.5 and 6 have purchased the disputed land under a registered sale deed
from the recorded Bhumiswami which sale deed has not been set aside by
any competent Civil Court. They have held that the Revenue Courts are
bound to effect mutation on the basis of registered document and it is not
open for them to enter into its legality or to examine its validity. Since there
was no injunction by any Court, mutation can be affected. It has further been
observed that litigations in respect of the disputed land are pending before
the Civil Court and the High Court and any decision to be rendered therein
would be binding upon the revenue authorities.
06. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
sale deed executed in favour of respondents No.5 and 6 was during pendency
of a civil suit instituted by one Shubh Lakshmi Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha
Maryadit and others against Suresh Choudhary restraining him from
alienating the disputed land. It is observed that the said society had instituted
civil suit against Suresh Choudhary for specific performance of contract with
respect to the disputed land. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court whose
decree was affirmed by this Court by judgment dated 15.02.2018 in First
Appeal No.81 of 1999. Nowhere in the said judgment has it been held that
the sale deed executed by Suresh Choudhary in favour of respondents No.5
and 6 was illegal. In any case that litigation was in respect of an agreement
having been executed by the society with Suresh Choudhary. The validity of
the sale deed executed in favour of respondents No.5 and 6 was not an issue
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4576
4 WP-24873-2024
therein.
07. On the record is also a judgment dated 22.06.2015 passed by this
Court in First Appeal No.685/2007, 686/2007 and 687/2007 which were
filed against different persons where also the dispute appears to be in respect
of agreement to sale. The same has no relevance to the present dispute and
the said judgement would not have any effect upon the validity of the sale
deed executed by Suresh Choudhary in favour of respondents No.5 and 6.
08. It is also noticed that civil suit had been preferred by petitioners,
wife and children of Suresh Choudhary, against Suresh Choudhary and
present respondents No.5 and 6 for declaration that the sale deed executed in
favour of respondents No.5 and 6 is null and void. On an application having
been preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the plaint has been
rejected by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 10.11.2022 which
has been affirmed by this Court by judgment dated 21.09.2024 in First
Appeal No.1818 of 2022. Thus challenge to the sale deed executed in favour
of respondents No.5 and 6 has already faced dismissal.
09. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that another civil suit has been instituted by Dr. Narendra Singh Punia and
others against respondents No.5 and 6 with respect to the disputed land
which is pending but therein there is no order restraining mutation. A perusal
of the relief claimed therein also does not show that the sale deed executed
by Suresh Choudhary in favour of respondents No.5 and 6 is under challenge.
Thus, pendency of that suit is wholly irrelevant.
10. The authorities below have categorically observed that mutation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4576
5 WP-24873-2024
would always be subject to the decision of the Civil Court. Presently, there is
no decision of any Civil Court setting aside the sale deed executed by Suresh
Choudhary in favour of respondents No.5 and 6. In case any judgment is
passed by any Civil Court, then the mutation affected in favour of
respondents No.5 and 6 would always be subject to the same.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error having
been committed by the authorities below in allowing the mutation
application preferred by respondents 5 and 6. Thus, affirming the orders
passed by the authorities below, the petition is found to be devoid of any
merits and is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
