Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sushilabai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2101
1 WP-1643-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 27 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1643 of 2025
SMT. SUSHILABAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Bharat Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2019
(Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain
affirming the order dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Sub Divisional
Officer (Revenue), Khategaon, District Dewas which in turn had affirmed the
order dated 29.12.2017 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Tappa
Rangaon, District Dewas whereby her application preferred under Sections 109,
110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code,1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for
her mutation over the disputed lands had been rejected.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was given certain
agricultural land at Village Ameli, Tehsil Khategaon, District Dewas for
performing Pooja of Shri Shankar Bhagwan Murti, Shri Shankar Mandir, Ameli.
She was recorded thereupon. The entries in the revenue records were altered by
the respondents and the name of Collector as Manager was recorded therein. This
led to filing of Civil Suit No.303-A/1980 by petitioner before the Civil Judge,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2101
2 WP-1643-2025
Junior Division Khategaon, District Dewas for declaration of her title and
permanent injunction with respect to the disputed lands. The same was decreed by
judgment and decree dated 31.03.1989. Thereafter the Collector, District Dewas as
Manager of the deity filed a separate Civil Suit No.2-A/2006 for declaration of
title and permanent injunction which was dismissed by Civil Judge, Class-II,
Khategaon, District Dewas by judgment and decree dated 30.06.2007. The same
was affirmed in appeal by judgment and decree dated 18.03.2009 passed by the
lower appellate Court and was further affirmed by order dated 20.02.2024 passed
by this Court in S.A. No.1391/2021.
3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed an application under Sections
109, 110 of the Code before the Tehsildar for her mutation over the disputed lands.
The same was dismissed by the Tehsildar holding that it has been filed after a
period of 27 years from the date of passing of the judgment and decree by the trial
Court hence is barred by time. The said order was affirmed by the Sub Divisional
Officer and further by the Additional Commissioner by the impugned order.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the record.
5. Mutation in revenue records is made pursuant to an application filed
under Sections 109, 110 of the Code the relevant part of which are as under :-
"109. Acquisition of rights to be reported.
( 1 ) Any person lawfully acquiring any right or interest in land shall
report his acquisition of such right within six months from the date of
such acquisition in the form prescribed -
(a) to the Patwari or any person authorised by the State Government in
this behalf or Tahsildar, in case of land situated in non-urban area;
( b ) to the Nagar Sarvekshak or any person authorised by the State
Government in this behalf or Tahsildar, in case of land situated in urban
area :
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2101
3 WP-1643-2025
********
(2) When any document purporting to create, assign or extinguish any
title to or any charge on land used for agricultural purposes, or in respect
of which a khasra has been prepared, is registered under the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 (No. 16 of 1908), the Registering Officer shall
send intimation to the Tahsildar having jurisdiction over the area in
which the land is situated in such Form and at such times as may be
prescribed.
(3) *********
(4) *********
(5) Any report regarding the acquisition of any right under this section
received after the specified period shall be dealt with in accordance with
the provisions of Section 110.
110. Mutation of acquisition of right in land records.
( 1 ) The Patwari or Nagar Sarvekshak or person authorised under
section 109 shall enter into a register prescribed for the purpose every
acquisition of right reported to him under section 109 or which comes to
his notice from any other source.
(2) The Patwari or Nagar Sarvekshak or person authorised, as the case
may be, shall intimate to the Tahsildar, all reports regarding acquisition
of right received by him under sub-section (1) in such manner and in
such Form as may be prescribed, within thirty days of the receipt thereof
by him.
( 3 ) On receipt of intimation under section 109 or on receipt of
intimation of such acquisition of right from any other source, the
Tahsildar shall within fifteen days, -
(a) register the case in his Court;
(b) issue a notice to all persons interested and to such other persons
and authorities as may be prescribed, in such Form and maimer as may
be prescribed; and
(c) display a notice relating to the proposed mutation on the notice
board of his office, and publish it in the concerned village or sector in
such manner as may be prescribed;
(4) The Tahsildar shall, after affording reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the persons interested and after making such further enquiry as
he may deem necessary, pass orders relating to mutation within thirty
days of registration of case, in case of undisputed matter, and within five
months, in case of disputed matter, and make necessary entry in the
village khasra or sector khasra, as the case may be, and in other land
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2101
4 WP-1643-2025
records.
(5) *********
(6) **********
(7) *********"
6. A perusal of Section 109 of the Code unmistakably shows that what has
been provided therein is only that any acquisition of right has to be reported within
a period of six months from the date of such acquisition. However, the
consequences of not reporting any such acquisition of right have not been stated
therein. It has not been provided that if any such acquisition of right is reported
after a period of six months the same would not be taken cognizance of and
mutation on its basis would become barred by time and would be impermissible.
The provision is procedural not mandatory and reporting of right is only
obligatory as has already been held by this Court in Dr. Rajdeep Kapoor V/s.
Mohammad Sarvar Khan 2021 (2) MPLJ 452 . The effect of the provision is not
creation of any period of limitation for seeking mutation but is only an obligation
imposed upon a person acquiring a right to report such acquisition to the revenue
authority concerned. However, merely for not doing so, it cannot be held that an
application for mutation based upon acquisition of right, even if made beyond a
period of six months from the date of such acquisition, would be beyond limitation
and would not be entertained.
7. This is further made clear from language of Sub Section (5) of Section
109 of the Code which provides that any report regarding acquisition of any right
under this Section received after the specified period i.e. after six months shall be
dealt with in accordance with provisions of Section 110. This further affirms the
fact that Section 109 is only procedural and not mandatory and reporting of right
is only obligatory. Even if such reporting is not made within the prescribed period
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2101
5 WP-1643-2025
i.e. six months but is made thereafter then also the same has to be dealt with in
accordance with the provisions of Section 110 which is the provision regarding the
manner in which mutation shall be effected. Even if report of acquisition of right
is received after six months then also mutation has to be effected as per Section
8. Another aspect which needs to be taken note of is that as per Sub
Section (3) of Section 110, which provides for the procedure for effecting
mutation, proceedings for mutation and consequent mutation can be done on
receipt of intimation under Section 109 or on receipt of intimation of acquisition
of right from any other source. Thus two modes are provided for initiating
proceeding for effecting mutation. One is receiving of an intimation of acquisition
of right under Section 109 and the other is such receipt from any other source.
Such other source of intimation would comprise within it an application made by
any person for mutation over the land for which no period of limitation has been
prescribed. It has nowhere been provided that firstly an intimation of acquisition of
right has to be given and thereafter only an application for mutation can be made.
An application for mutation even without sending any intimation under Section
109 can be made independently upon acquisition of right at any time.
9. In the present case the decree passed in favour of the petitioner on
31.03.1989 has attained finality. The challenge to the same by the respondents by
preferring their independent suit has also faced dismissal upto this Court. There is
no legal impediment for giving effect to the judgment and decree dated
31.03.1989. As held above there was no period of limitation for preferring
mutation application under Section 109, 110 of the Code. The authorities below
have however erred in dismissing the mutation application of the petitioner only
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2101
6 WP-1643-2025
on the ground of delay i.e. the same having been preferred 27 years after passing
of the judgment and decree. The impugned orders hence cannot be sustained.
10. As a consequence, the impugned orders passed by the authorities
below are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Tehsildar to
decide the mutation application preferred by the petitioner on its own merits
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
11. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
