Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satyanarayan Mali vs Anil Kumawat on 5 March, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5755
1 WA-2734-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2734 of 2024
SATYANARAYAN MALI
Versus
ANIL KUMAWAT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Prateek
Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vishwas Daima, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent No.2/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present Intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant under Section
2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko
Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2024
passed by learned Single Judge in M.P. No.6043/2022 whereby the
miscellaneous petition filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed.
2 . The respondent No.1 filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India (provision is wrongly mentioned) challenging the order
dated 24.11.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5755
2 WA-2734-2024
Ujjain whereby the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated
07.01.2020 has been set aside and the order dated 23.06.2015 passed by
Tehsildar, Ujjain has been affirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner submitted that the
petitioner purchased the land in question from respondent No.1 who has
registered sale-deed dated 22.04.2015. He applied for mutation of his name
in the revenue record and vide order dated 23.06.2015, his name was mutated
in the revenue record. Respondent No.1 submitted an application on
15.10.2015 before the Tehsildar and vide order dated 29.10.2016, the
Tehsildar has reviewed its own order dated 23.06.2015.
4 . Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal
before the Sub Divisional Officer and by order dated 11.08.2017, the Sub
Divisional Officer remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar. After remand,
the Tehsildar did not pass any order on mutation, rather directed the parties
to approach the Civil Court. The writ petitioner approached the Sub
Divisional Officer by way of an appeal, which has been allowed by Sub
Divisional Officer vide order dated 07.01.2020. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid order, respondent No.1/appellant preferred a second appeal before
the Commissioner which has been allowed vide order dated 24.11.2022 and
set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and directed to restore the
position prior to 23.06.2015, meaning thereby, the name of respondent
No.4/appellant has been restored.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge
has erred while allowing the writ petition on the ground that permission to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5755
3 WA-2734-2024
seek review of an order of Tehsildar ought to have been granted by Collector
not by the Sub Divisional Officer. He further argued that at the relevant time,
Sub Divisional Officer was competent authority, therefore, the view taken by
the learned Single Judge was erroneous. On the same ground, a review
petition was also filed as R.P. No.1053/2024 before the learned Single Judge
and while dismissing the review petition, learned Single Judge has held that
the writ petition has not been allowed only on the said ground but also on
other grounds.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that so
far as the order of learned Single Judge regarding the competence of the Sub
Divisional Officer is concerned, the said view is incorrect. At the relevant
time, the Sub Divisional Officer was competent authority to grant permission
for the review as the order was passed on 14.10.2015 whereas the
amendment had come on 24.09.2018.
7. However, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge has taken into
consideration other grounds that the appellant has already filed a civil suit
seeking for cancellation of sale deed. It is settled law that the
mutation/revenue records do not confer any title and no right is established
by the revenue entry in the revenue records. In this regard reference has been
made to the judgments in the cases of Jattu Ram vs Hakam Singh And
Others, AIR 1994 SC 1653 ; Smt. Sawarni vs Smt. Inder Kaur and Others,
AIR 1996 SC 2823 and Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others, 2021 SCC Online SC 802.
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5755
4 WA-2734-2024
order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, it goes without saying
that any mutation made in the revenue records is subject to final outcome of
the civil suit filed by the appellant.
9. With the aforesaid, writ appeal stands disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE JUDGE
N.R.
