Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagirath (Dead) Through Lrs (A) Rampal vs Sughreev Singh on 18 June, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke, Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12117
1 WP-5543-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 18th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5543 of 2025
BHAGIRATH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS (A) RAMPAL AND
OTHERS
Versus
SUGHREEV SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Anand Vinod Bhardwaj - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Devendra Goswami - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated
18.10.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division,
Morena in second Appeal No.0150/Appeal/2020-21 whereby the order
dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub-
Division Sabalgarh, District Morena in first appeal No.73/Appeal/2019-
20 was reversed and the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the Tahsildar
by which the application for mutation under Section 109/110 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 preferred by the present
petitioners was rejected, was restored.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued
before this Court that the grounds, on which the Tahsildar had rejected
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12117
2 WP-5543-2025
the application for mutation, i.e. barred by limitation and not bringing on
record the fact of death of certain persons in whose favour, there was a
judgment and decree dated 18.01.2000 of a Civil Court on the basis of
which, the application for mutation was moved, were wholly perverse, as
under Section 109/110 of the Code, there is no period of limitation
prescribed, except 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 is not stated
therein, therefore, holding that the mutation sought on the basis of
judgment and decree dated 18.01.2000 was barred by limitation, was not
a correct proposition and therefore, the order was bad in law, which was
rightly set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated
22.01.2021 in first appeal, but in second appeal, the learned Additional
Commissioner, ignoring the said legal position, had reversed the order of
the SDO and restored that of Tahsildar which is unsustainable.
3. Learned counsel, while placing reliance on paras 6 and 7 in the
matter of Smt. Sushila Bai vs. State of M.P. & Others reported in
2025(2) MPLJ 387, has argued that the effect of the provision is not
creation of any period of limitation seeking mutation but is only an
obligation imposed upon a person acquiring a right to report such
acquisition to the revenue authority concerned and merely in not doing
so, it cannot be held that an application for mutation based upon
acquisition of right, made beyond a period of six months from the date
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12117
3 WP-5543-2025
of such acquisition, would be beyond limitation and would not be
entertained. It is thus submitted that the present petition be allowed and
the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, dated 18.10.2023 be
set aside and that of the SDO be restored.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while
opposing the prayer made by counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned
Additional Commissioner in setting aside the order of the SDO, as
admittedly, the judgment and decree on the basis of which the petitioners
had sought mutation of their names in the revenue records was dated
18.01.2000 and at the most, the petitioners could have got their names
mutated in the revenue records within a period of 12 years after passing
of such decree, but since the application for mutation was preferred in
the year 2019, it was beyond the period of limitation for execution of
judgment and decree, therefore, rightly it was rejected by the Tahsildar,
but the SDO on extraneous grounds had set aside the order passed by the
Tahsildar which was duly corrected by the Additional Commissioner in
second appeal, which cannot be faulted with.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioners even could not place
on record before the Tahsildar about the factum of death of persons in
whose favour the judgment and decree was passed by the learned Trial
Court and the fact of the petitioners being their actual representatives
since could not be adjudicated; in absence thereof, the application was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12117
4 WP-5543-2025
rightly rejected. It was, thus, prayed that the present petition, being
devoid of merits, be dismissed.
6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record as
well as the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, this
Court finds that names of the persons, in whose favour the judgment and
decree dated 18.01.2000 was passed in Civil Suit No.61-A of 1998 since
were dead, they were represented through their LRs as is mentioned in
the cause title of the petition. Even from the order passed by the SDO
dated 22.01.2021, it could be seen that the SDO, while allowing the first
appeal, had observed that after verifying the legal representatives of
deceased/plaintiffs, their names be mutated in the revenue records,
which goes to show that the Tashildar was required to inquire into the
status of alleged legal representatives and were mentioning of names in
the cause title would not mean that they are the actual LRs, thus, before
mutating their names in the revenue records, the factum of the petitioners
being LRs would be determined.
7. So far as the grounds of rejecting the application for mutation
that it was barred by limitation, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
unequivocal terms in paras 6 and 7 has held as under:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12117
5 WP-5543-2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12117
6 WP-5543-2025
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 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 110."
8. This Court is in full agreement with the conclusion arrived at by
the Coordinate Bench, as the provisions of Section 109 of the Code only
provides that within the period of six months from the date of acquisition
of rights, has to be reported to the Tahsildar within the aforesaid period,
but if such acquisition is not reported, it could not mean that the
mutation would become barred by time and would be impermissible.
The effect of the provision is not creation of any period of limitation
seeking mutation, but is only an obligation imposed upon a person
acquiring a right to report such acquisition to the revenue authority
concerned and merely in not doing so, could not hold that the
application for mutation be not entertainable.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12117
7 WP-5543-2025
9. In the present case, the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2000
was challenged by the present respondent in Regular Appeal No.12-A of
2005 which was dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 29.04.2006,
which in turn was challenged before this Court in Second Appeal
No.515 of 2006 which also got dismissed vide judgment dated
19.02.2009, thus, the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2000 attained
finality only in the year 2009. Thus, when the rights have been accrued
in favour of the predecessors in title/petitioners, merely on the basis of
some procedural provision like Section 109 of the Code, said rights
cannot be curtailed, as reporting of right to the revenue authority is only
obligatory and not mandatory.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order
passed by the Additional Commissioner, dated 18.10.2023 is hereby set
aside and that of the SDO dated 22.01.2021 is hereby restored.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
