Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Girand Prasad Sharma vs Mahavir Prasad on 30 January, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2068
1 WP-4013-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 30th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4013 of 2025
SHRI GIRAND PRASAD SHARMA
Versus
MAHAVIR PRASAD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N.K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri YPS Rathore - Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri G.S. Sharma - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 05.07.2021 passed by Tehsildar, Raun, whereby petitioner's application to correct the village map and put a line therein as per the order passed in the partition proceedings before Tehsildar, which were affirmed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena in the year, 2019, merely because the present respondents have filed a civil suit no.185/2019 for declaration and injunction and as the status of the said suit was not known/brought on record, the prayer as made by the petitioner was declined and the application was rejected.
2. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner along with Shri YPS Rathore has argued before this Court that the present petitioners have preferred an application under Section 178 of MPLRC before Tehsildar, Raun which was allowed vide order dated 31.12.2011 and on the basis of the fard batankan Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 04-Feb-25 12:08:43 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2068 2 WP-4013-2025 the partition was effected between parties.
3. The said order was challenged by the present respondents in first appeal before the SDO in appeal no.32/2011-12 which got dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2014 and further challenging the said order of appeal a second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner Chambal Division Morena in second appeal no.106/2015-16 which after hearing the parties was also dismissed, thus, the order of partition had attained finality as thereafter the present respondents have not challenged the aforesaid proceeding before any forum.
4. It was further argued that after passing of the order of Commissioner on 04.02.2019, on 03.08.2019 a civil suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the present respondents and as and when on 28.01.2020 an application as aforesaid was filed before Tehsildar for making necessary corrections in the village map in accordance with the partition effected, the said application was rejected on the ground of pendency of civil suit with regard to the property in question and the status of the said suit is not known, therefore, the proceedings on the application cannot be proceeded with which is per se illegal as in the light of the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 178 of MPLRC only if any question of title is raised before Tehsildar during the proceedings of partition, the Tehsildar shall stay the proceedings before him for a period of three months to facilitate the institution of a civil suit for determination of the question of title and further as per sub-Section 1-A of Section 178 MPLRC if a civil suit is filed within the period specified in the proviso to sub-Section (1) and stay order is obtained from the Civil Court, Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 04-Feb-25 12:08:43 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2068 3 WP-4013-2025 the Tehsildar shall stay his proceedings pending the decision of civil Court, thus, when after filing of the partition proceedings no civil suit was filed within the limitation as prescribed therein, later on merely filing of the civil suit would not act as a stay or injunction over the revenue proceedings and admittedly, since there is no injunction granted in favor of the present respondents in the civil suit, the rejection of the application by learned Tehsildar merely on the basis of the pendency of the suit is per se illegal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the very impugned order and had submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Tehsildar in rejecting the application as the title with regard to the land in question is yet to be decided by competent Court of civil jurisdiction and since the very rights of the parties are yet to be determined, any relief claimed by any of the parties before the revenue authorities is not maintainable.
6. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
7. The legal position with regard to mere pendency of a suit or an appeal is very well settled and in catena of judgments this Court as well as Apex Court has held that pendency of suit or an appeal would not act as a stay or injunction in favor of any of the parties and admittedly, there is no injunction or stay in the civil suit no.185/ 2019 preferred by the present petitioner.
8. Further as contended by the learned Sr. counsel that the suit was not even filed within the period prescribed under proviso of sub-Section (1) of Section 178 of MPLRC and no stay has been obtained within three months, Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 04-Feb-25 12:08:43 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2068 4 WP-4013-2025 therefore, the order passed by the Tehsildar is wholly perverse and appears to be justified as admittedly the suit preferred after second appeal preferred by the present respondents before Commissioner challenging the proceedings under Section 178 of MPLRC was dismissed.
9. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid fact, this Court finds that the order passed by the Tehsildar is perverse, accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. However, this Court finds it expedient to remit the matter back to Tehsildar/respondent no.10 to decide the application preferred by the petitioner afresh after getting status of the suit as well as looking to the provisions of Section 178 of MPLRC.
10. Parties are directed to appear before Tehsildar on 27.02.2025.
11. It is needless to observe that any observation made by this Court shall not come in way while deciding Civil Suit.
12. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed and disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Chandni Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 04-Feb-25 12:08:43 PM