Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prem Narayan (Died) Through Lrs (1A) ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 1 May, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9639
1 WP-873-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 873 of 2016
PREM NARAYAN (DIED) THROUGH LRS (1A) SMT. GEETA DEVI AND
OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Singh Kaurav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G K Agarwal - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner orally prays for conversion of this writ
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India into writ petition under
Article 226.
Prayer accepted.
Petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary correction at the Board itself.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the
petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this
petition.
(ii) That, the impugned order dated 16.10.2015 Annexure P/1 passed
by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.2539-PBR/2013, order dated
27.04.2013 passed in Case No.393/Appeal/2008-2009 by the
Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, order dated
30.03.2009 Annexure P/3 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Vidisha
in case No.114/Appeal/07-08 and the order dated 22.02.2008 Annexure
P/4 passed by Naib Tehsildar in Case No.43/A-6/07-08 may kindly be
directed to be set aside and the application as submitted by the
petitioners may kindly be allowed ordering to the Revenue Courts to
make the mutation order in favour of the petitioners in respect of the
suit land.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9639
2 WP-873-2016
(iii) That, any just, suitable and proper remedy which is found in favour
of the petitioner may kindly be issued including the costs be awarded."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite having judgment
and decree dated 28.09.21973 passed by Civil Judge Class II Vidisha in their
favour, with regard to the disputed land bearing survey No.285 old No.338 total
area 8 Bigha which was renumbered as survey No.338/1 area 3 Bigha 8 Biswa and
Survey No.338/2 area 17 Biswa and was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate
Court, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 109 and 110 of M.P.
Land Revenue Code, 1959 for mutation of their names, after the death of their
father namely Rajaramji in respect of disputed land was rejected by the Tehsildar
by holding that they had just filed photocopies of the said judgment and decree,
which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Authority and also the said
judgment and decree do not confer any title, since it was only with regard to
possession and in absence of any document of title, the names cannot be mutated,
which is bad in law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the
decree passed in favour of petitioners was only with regard to possession and as
the petitioners could not produce any document of title, therefore, Tehsildar had
rigthly rejected their application for mutation which was subsequently affirmed by
the Higher Revenue Authorities.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused record.
From perusal of the record, it appears that in the absence of production of
any document of title, the application for mutation filed by the petitioners was
dismissed which was subsequently affirmed by the Higher Revenue Authorities.
The judgment and decree passed by the trial court which was subsequently
affirmed by the Appellate Court was only with regard to possession. The decree of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9639
3 WP-873-2016
possession does not confer any title to the decree-holder. Hence, no illegality has
been committed by Tehsildar in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners
for mutation.
Accordingly, there is no sum and substance in the present petition.
However, liberty is extended to the petitioners that if they have any document with
regard to title, they can move a fresh application for mutation before Tehsildar,
which shall be decided by the Tehsildar on its own merits.
With the aforesaid liberty, this petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
