Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahehs Singh Thakur vs Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) ... on 27 November, 2025
1 MP-4693-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 27th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4693 of 2025
MAHEHS SINGH THAKUR
Versus
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) RAISEN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Shah - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Mukund Agrawal - Government Advocate for the
Respondent/State.
ORDER
By way of this Petition, challenge is made to the Orders dated
26.07.2023 and 06.11.2024 passed by the Tahsildar and S.D.O. respectively
whereby these two Revenue Authorities have refused to mutate the name of
Petitioner in the Revenue Records on the ground that the authorities are not
agreeable to the judgment and Decree passed by the District Court.
2. The Petitioner had instituted a Civil Suit in relation to land at
Survey No.84/2/11 area 4 acres in Village Karmodiya, Tahsil and District
Raisen, M.P. and he lost the Civil Suit vide judgment and Decree dated
16.05.2019. However, in appeal, the District Judge, Raisen in RCSA
No.11/2019 allowed the appeal of the Petitioner and granted a Decree of
declaration and permanent injunction in favour of the Petitioner in respect of
the suit land.
2 MP-4693-2025
3. The said judgment and decree was passed in the presence of
Government Advocate and when the Petitioner filed an application for
mutation in terms of the said judgment and decree, then the Tahsildar
submitted a proposal to the S.D.O. that the land appears to be Government
land.
4. The S.D.O., in turn vide Order dated 06.11.2024 has noted in the
order that the land is a Government land and the land being non transferrable,
mutation cannot be carried out by the State authority in terms of the
judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer, in the impugned Order has held as
under:-
" करण के पर ण एवं अधीन थ यायालय के अपील त करण के अवलोकन
तथा उभय प के व ान अिधव ाओं के मौ खक तक पर मनन कया गया।
करण म संल न अधीन थ यायालय के ारा करण कमांक 399/अ-6/2022--
23 "महे श व राधे याम" ाम करमो दया के अवलोकन उपरांत पाया गया क
अपील त भूिम थत ाम करमो दया, तहसील व जला रायसेन खसरा कमांक
84/2/11 रकवा 1.619 हे टे यर , मूल सव कमांक 84 का एक बटान है तथा मूल
सव कमांक 84 के संबंध म ांम करमो दया के अिधकार अिभलेख म भूिम
का बल का त दज ह। तथा अधीन थ यायालय के करण म संल न पंचसालां
खसरे के अवलोकन से प है क मूल सव मांक 84 क का बल का त भूिम
का बंटन विभ न य य को कया गया है । इस कार यह त य काश म
आता है क अपील त भूिम सव कमांक 84/2/11 रकवा 1.619 हे टे यर प टे
पर बं टत क गई भूिम है । अपील त भूिम के क यूटर खसरा वष 2023-24
के अवलोकन से प है क भूिम राधे याम पु भंवरलाल जाित गाडर के नाम
अह तांतरणीय प से दज है । य प माननीय यायालय जला यायाधीश
रायसेन के करण मांक 11/2019 पा रत िनणय दनांक 16.12.2019 ारा
अपीलाथ के प म आ ि दान क गई है तथा प पा रत िनणय के अवलोकन
से प है क शासन प के एक प ीय रहने से यह त य क अपील त भूिम
सव मांक 84/2/11 मूलतः शासन ारा प टे पर द भूिम है माननीय
यायालय के सम तुत नह ं कया जा सका। उपरो ववेचना 'के आधार पर
िन कषतः यह मा णत है क अपील त भूिम शासन ारा प टे के मा यम से
वं टत भूिम है और ऐसी भूिम के व य क स म अनुमित ा क गई हो ऐसे
3 MP-4693-2025
कोई लेखीय सा य करण म उपल ध नह है ।
अतः उपरो ववेचना के आधार पर अपील त भूिम के अह तांतरणीय होने के
कारण अपीलाथ क अपील सारह न होने से अ वीकार क जाती ह।"
6. The Sub Divisional Officer therefore, has refused to comply with
the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court more so, when the said
Decree was passed in presence of the Government counsel and the State was
party to the said Decree.
7. When the said Order dated 06.11.2024 had been passed, the State
had not filed any Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the
Appellate Court and neither the said judgment and decree had been stayed
nor set aside because even Appeal has not been filed. Despite that, the
S.D.O. by deeming himself to be an authority over and above the District
Judge, has refused to recognize the judgment and Decree passed by the
District Judge. It is really surprising that the officer is trying to make believe
that he is trying to save the land of the Government, whreas the land would
be saved only when an second appeal is filed against the judgement and
decree of the Appellate Court. The officer has only done lip service to
interest of the State.
8. The aforesaid Order passed by Shri Mukesh Singh, Sub Divisional
Officer is not only illegal but is also contemptuous.
9. Therefore, Office is directed to register a separate case under
Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act against Shri Mukesh Singh,
the then Sub Divisional Officer for having committed contempt of the
authority of District Judge, Raisen by refusing to recognize the Judgment
4 MP-4693-2025
and decree passed by the District Judge, Raisen.
10. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, the Tahsildar is
directed to verify whether the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court
has been set aside or stayed in Second Appeal. If the said judgment and
decree has not been set aside or stayed, or is not set aside or stayed within 60
days from today, then the Tahsildar shall ensure mutation in terms of said
judgment and decree.
11. In the aforesaid terms, the Petition is disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
