Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vimal Sahni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 February, 2024

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                              1                  W.P. No.11174/2015


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
           AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
               ON THE 12th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
               WRIT PETITION No.11174 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
1.   VIMAL SAHNI S/O LATE MUNSHI RAM
     SAHNI R/O GURUNANAK WARD, KATNI
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   ASHA SAHNI W/O SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR
     SAHNI, R/O GURUNANAK WARD, KATNI
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   SMT. INDU JAISWAL W/O SHRI RAJKUMAR
     JAISWAL, R/O STATION ROAD, KATNI
     (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                .....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SANJIV KUMAR MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.   STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR,
     KATNI   DISTRICT  KATNI (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

2.   SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TAHSIL        &
     DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   TAHSILDAR, KATNI, TAHSIL & DISTRICT
     KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   VINOD KUMAR THROUGH ATTORNEY
     HOLDER SANJAY SINGH S/O SHRI K.K.
     SINGH R/O CIVIL LINE, KATNI (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

                                               .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3/STATE BY SHRI MANHAR DIXIT - PANEL
LAWYER, RESPONDENT NO.4 BY SHRI KUNAL THAKRE - ADVOCATE)
.........................................................................................................
                                     2                   W.P. No.11174/2015


      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
                                ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 02/07/2015 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsil & District Katni in case No.58/A-6-A/14-15 and order dated 29/06/2015 passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil & District Katni in case No.58/A-6-A/2014-15.

2. It is the case of petitioners that respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 109-110 of M.P.L.R. Code for mutation of his name. It was his case that his grandfather Vishwanath Pandey had purchased khasra No.20/1, 20/2 area 3 acres from Smt. Sheela Christian by registered sale-deed dated 25/11/1953. In absence of legal knowledge, he could not get his name mutated in the revenue records. The purchaser had expired on 15/10/1956. His legal representatives were Ratan Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Vinod Kumar, out of whom Ratan Kumar and Ashok Kumar have expired and respondent No.4 is his legal representative. Even after alienation of property by Smt. Sheela Christian, name of her son Edwin Christian is still recorded in the revenue records. Accordingly, it was prayed that name of respondent No.4 be recorded in the revenue records.

3. It appears that a general notice was published and notice was issued to Smt. Sheela Christian which was returned back with an endorsement that her whereabouts are not known. Accordingly, a public notice was published in daily newspaper Nav Bharat on 21/09/2013. In spite of publication of general notice, neither seller nor her legal representatives appeared and accordingly, they were proceeded ex parte.

It was the case of respondent No.4 that respondent No.4 was aware of the sale-deed executed in favour of Vishwanath Pandey. The seller as well as purchaser, both have expired. During cleaning of house, aforesaid document was recovered. Since the name of purchaser was not recorded in the revenue records, therefore the son of seller has also alienated some pieces of land and accordingly, it was prayed that the name of respondent No.4 be recorded and he would take appropriate legal remedy in respect of land alienated by the son of seller. Report from Halka Patwari was called who informed that purchaser Vishwanath Pandey has expired on 15/10/1956, his son Ashok Kumar has expired on 15/10/1998 and Ratan Kumar has expired on 22/03/1997, whereas his legal representative Vinod Kumar/ respondent No.4 is still alive. Legal representatives of Ashok Kumar are his widow Anjana Chaturvedi, son - Amit and daughter - Ira and legal representative of Ratan Kumar is his son - Prashant, whereas his widow has already expired.

4. Accordingly, Tahsildar by order dated 04/10/2013 gave a finding that the seller had total area of 5.60 acres, out of which 3 acres forming part of khasra No.20/1 and 20/2 were alienated to Shri Vishwanath Pandey. Since name of purchaser was not recorded, therefore legal representative of seller has alienated certain pieces of land to other persons whose names have already been recorded in the revenue records. Even son of seller has expressed his no objection and accordingly, it was directed that the names of Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi, Anjana widow of Ashok Kumar, Amit Ranjan, Ira Chaturvedi, Prashant Kumar be recorded in the revenue records.

5. It is submitted that since on the basis of mutation order dated 04/10/2013 passed by Tehsildar in revenue case No.377/A-6/12-13, 4 W.P. No.11174/2015 respondent No.4 was trying to dispossess the petitioners, therefore they have filed a Civil Suit in which temporary injunction was granted by order dated 31/10/2014 and accordingly, respondent No.4 has been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioners. Although respondent No.4 was well aware of the pendency of Civil Suit, still he filed an application under Section 115, 116 of M.P.L.R. Code. A report was called from Halka Patwari and thereafter, by order dated 29/06/2015, respondent No.3 sought permission from respondent No.2 to review the mutation order. Respondent No.4 had also filed an application for revision of map which was registered as case No.8/A- 6A/13-14, in which also Tahsildar had called the report from Revenue Inspector Mudwara, District Katni and a report was submitted that the land of petitioners is separate from the land of respondent No.4. It was also reported that the names of petitioners have rightly been recorded after following due procedure as provided under M.P.L.R. Code. It is the case of petitioners that on the basis of said report, Tahsildar dismissed the application filed by respondent No.4 for revision of map and further held that khasra No.20/2(kha) has emerged from original khasra No.20/1 and 20/2. It was also held that there was no revision of map in the original khasra No.20/1 and 20/2. However, 59 divisions of khasra have already been recorded in revenue records in which houses and commercial complexes have been constructed by concerning owners. It is submitted that in spite of aforesaid, respondent No.2 has granted permission vide order dated 02/07/2015 for reviewing the mutation orders dated 25/11/1997, 06/03/1999 and 29/01/2002.

6. Challenging the order dated 02/07/2015 passed by SDO, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that respondent No.3 has wrongly 5 W.P. No.11174/2015 sought permission for suo motu review, whereas respondent No.4 had filed an application for correction of revenue records. Even otherwise, respondent No.2 has wrongly granted permission for review of mutation order after 13 to 18 years. Respondent No.4 is well aware of the fact that Civil Suit is pending between the parties and there is a temporary injunction order in favour of petitioners, therefore permission to review in place of correction of khasra entry is unwarranted.

7. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by cousnel for respondent No.4. Counsel for respondent No.4 has supported the findings given by SDO.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. From order dated 29/06/2015 passed by Tahsildar, Katni in case No.58/A-6-A/2014-15, it is clear that Tahsildar had sought permission to review the orders dated 25/11/1997, 06/03/1999 and 29/01/2002 in respect of khasra No.20/2(ka) passed in mutation No.22, mutation No.41 and mutation No.03 respectively on the ground that sale-deed executed by Smt. Sheela Christian in favour of Vishwanath Pandey was prior in time whereas sale-deeds executed in favour of other purchasers are subsequent in time.

10. It is true that Civil Suit is pending between the parties. If the land was already sold by Smt. Sheela Christian to respondent No.4, then it is clear that she had lost all her title in respect of 3 acres of land which was sold to forefather of respondent No.4 and any subsequent sale-deed executed either by her or by her legal representative will not confer any title to subsequent purchasers.

11. It is well established principle of law that a seller cannot alienate 6 W.P. No.11174/2015 the title better than what he himself has.

12. So far as the pendency of Civil Suit is concerned, it is true that there is temporary injunction in favour of petitioners but the said temporary injunction is with regard to non-interference in the peaceful possession of petitioners. The suit is for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Mutation is for fiscal purposes and mutation entry is not a document of title.

13. If the property was already sold to Vishwanath Pandey, then subsequent purchasers of the same land will not get any title. Therefore, it is observed that so far as the question of title of subsequent purchaser is concerned, since the said question is subjudice before the Civil Court, therefore no further observation is required in that regard. However, so far as the permission granted by SDO to review the orders dated 25/11/1997, 06/03/1999 and 29/01/2002 is concerned, it appears that permission was sought on the basis of sound principle of law.

14. So far as the delay in exercise of power of review is concerned, Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Singh & Others Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2010 (4) M.P.L.J. 178 has held that the suo motu powers can be exercised by revisional authority envisaged under Section 50 of M.P.L.R.C. within a period of 180 days from the date of the knowledge of illegality, impropriety and irregularity of the proceedings committed by any revenue officer subordinate to it even if the immovable property is Government land or having some public interest. When the authority came to know about the order can be considered on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case and no definite yardstick in that regard can be laid down.

15. Therefore, the question is as to whether suo motu power to review was exercised within a reasonable period of 180 days from the date of acquisition of knowledge or not?

16. The date of acquisition of knowledge is a disputed question of fact and therefore, Tahsildar, Tahsil Katni was required to point out the date on which he gathered information about the illegality. It is true that respondent No.4 had filed an application under Section 115-116 of M.P.L.R. Code and during those proceedings, Tahsildar came to know about the illegality in the mutation orders. Thus, if he has exercised his suo motu power of review and sought permission from SDO, then it cannot be said that suo motu exercise of power of review was not within the reasonable period of time.

17. Accordingly, without touching the question of title of property as well as without touching the temporary injunction order if any passed by the Civil Court, it is held that no illegality was committed by the SDO by granting permission to review orders dated 25/11/1997, 06/03/1999 and 29/01/2002. However it is made clear that any correction in mutation entry shall be subject to the final outcome of the civil litigation.

18. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M. Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2024.02.23 15:17:45 +05'30'