Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Godavari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17670
1 WP-26295-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 11th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 26295 of 2025
SMT. GODAVARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Kushal Goyal- GA for the State.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure-P/9)
passed by respondent no.3 whereby their application for mutation over the
disputed land has been rejected.
2. Petitioners are the owners of the disputed land bearing survey
no.86/1 area 1.206 hectares at Gram Nisarpur, Tehsil Kukshi, District- Dhar.
The same was acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of oustees of Sardar
Sarovar Project. Award in that regard was passed on 09.02.2002 under
section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The same was challenged by
the petitioner in WP No.3921/2017 before this Court which was dismissed
vide order dated 13.07.2020. Writ Appeal No.817/2020 preferred by the
petitioners was allowed by order dated 16.08.2022 and the land acquisition
proceedings were quashed and respondents were directed not to interfere
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17670
2 WP-26295-2025
with petitioners' possession over the land.
3. Thereafter petitioners filed an application under section 109 and
110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before respondent no.3 for being
mutated for the disputed land. The said application has been rejected by
respondent no.3 by primarily observing that in the order passed by this Court
in the writ appeal there is no such direction to mutate the petitioners over the
disputed land and the only direction issued is not to interfere with their
possession over the same. It is against this order that the petition has been
preferred on the ground that the order passed is wholly illegal, arbitrarily and
unsustainable.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has supported
the impugned order and has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record.
6. It is well settled that mutation follows title. Earlier, the petitioners
were the owners of the disputed land which was compulsorily acquired by
the respondents under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act,1894 which
acquisition proceedings have been quashed by the division bench of this
court the necessary corollary of which is that title of the petitioners over the
disputed land stands upheld. It was not necessary for the division bench to
have passed any order as regards recording the names of the petitioners over
the disputed land. Even if the same was not so directed mutation has to be
considered in light of the true effect and import of the decision. Once the
acquisition proceedings were quashed, title of the petitioners over the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:17670
3 WP-26295-2025
disputed land stood revived and since mutation is to be effected on the basis
of title the petitioners automatically becames entitled for being mutated. It
mattered not whether any directions in that regard had been issued by this
court or not.
7. In my opinion, once the title of the petitioners stood revived they
deserve to be recorded over the disputed land whereas respondent no.3 erred
in rejecting their application in that regard. Since the prayer was made on the
basis of judgment passed by this Court, I do not deem it to be a fit case for
relegating the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy of preferring an
appeal before the appellate authority under the provisions of M.P. Land
Revenue Code, 1959.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned order dated
19.03.2024 passed by respondent no.3 cannot be sustained and is accordingly
quashed. The application preferred by the petitioners for mutation over the
disputed land stands allowed. Necessary corrections in all the revenue
records be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of certified
copy of this order.
9. With the aforesaid, petition is allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ajit
