Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumesh Madan vs Sunil Madan on 8 May, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 2511 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. SUMESH MADAN S/O LATE SHRI HAKIKAT RAI
MADAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O MANGAJ WARD NO.1,
DAMOH DISTRICT DAMOH M.P. CURRENT R/O
HOUSE NO.634, SHANTI NAGAR, TEHSIL AND
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT.BINDU MADAN W/O SUMESH MADAN, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
MANGAJ WARD NO. 1 DAMOH DISTT.DAMOH AT
PRESENT HOUSE NO. 634 SHANTI NAGAR TEHSIL
AND DISTT.JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BRAHMENDRA PATHAK - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SUNIL MADAN S/O LATE SHRI HAKIKAT RAI
MADAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O UPPER SIDE
OF HDFC BANK STATION ROAD, DAMOH
DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KISHORE MADAN S/O LATE HAKIKAT RAI
MADAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MANGAJ WARD
NO. 1 NEAR JAIN SCHOOL DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MUKESH MADAN S/O LATE HAKIKAT RAI
MADAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, MANGAJ WARD
NO. 1 NEAR JAIN SCHOOL DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY DR. ANUVAD SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 &
3, SHRI MRITUNJAY MISHRA - ADVOCATE FOR INTERVENOR)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Signing time: 5/9/2023
6:01:50 PM
2
following:
ORDER
This Mmiscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Ind ia has been filed against the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar in Case No.541/A-6- /appeal/2013-14 and order dated 19.05.2014 passed by the S.D.O (Revenue), Damoh, District Damoh in Case No. 152/A-6/2011-12.
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that Hakikat Rai had jointly purchased one property along with Ramlal Madan. Ramlal Madan executed a Will in respect of his share in favour of the petitioner no.1 and Anil Kumar Madan, the adopted son of Ramlal Madan. However, this petition has nothing to do with the property, which was bequeathed by Ramlal Madan. The property in dispute is the share of Hakikat Rai, which he had jointly purchased with Ramlal Madan. The property in question was given to the petitioner in a family settlement and accordingly in the Namanantran Panji/Sansodhan Panji, the Naib Tehsildar, Damoh directed for mutation of name of the petitioner. Later on the petitioner has sold the said property to the petitioner no.2, who is his wife, however, the counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to explain as to why the husband sold the property to his wife.
3. Be that whatever it may be.
4. The order of mutation was successfully challenged before the S.D.O. and the same was set aside by the S.D.O by order dated 19.05.2014 passed in Case No. 152/A-6/2011-12. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said order before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar and the appeal has been dismissed by order dated 20.07.2021 in Case No. 541/A-6/appeal/2013-14.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 5/9/2023 6:01:50 PM 35. Challenging the orders passed by the courts below, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since mutation was done on the basis of family settlement which was also supported by an affidavit of the respondent no.1, therefore, merely because mutation was done directly on the Namanantran Panji/Sansodhan Panji should not be held to be bad in law.
6. Per Contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that in fact an ex parte order of mutation was passed on the Namanantran Panji. No separate proceeding was registered by the Naib Tehsildar. No notices were given to the interesting parties and ex parte order was passed behind the back of all necessary parties. The family settlement was also disputed by the respondents.
7. Heard counsel for the parties.
8. From Annexure P-3, it is clear that the order of mutation was passed on Namanantran Panji by Naib Tehsildar on 04.11.2011. There is nothing on record to show that prior to directing for mutation, any notice was given to the general public or to the necessary parties. The other siblings of the petitioner no.1 have a legitimate claim to oppose family settlement. Thus, it is clear that the mutation was done dehore the provisions of the law by passing an order directly on Namanantran Panji without issuing notice to any of the necessary party. Under these circumstances, the S.D.O. as well as the Additional Commissioner, did not commit any mistake by setting aside order of Naib Tehsildar, by which the name of the petitioner no.2 was mutated. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE tarun Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 5/9/2023 6:01:50 PM 4 Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Signing time: 5/9/2023 6:01:50 PM