Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Deepak vs Mranalinidevi Wd/O Anandrao Panwar ... on 11 September, 2019

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  W.P. No. 11237/2019
      Deepak S/o. S.N. Suryavanshi V/s. Mranalinidevi &
                           others.
                            -: 1 :-
Indore, dated : 11.09.2019
             Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
             Heard, on the question of admission.
                              ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.8.2015 passed by Tehsildar, Dhar; order dated 18.9.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Dhar; and order dated 4.4.2019 passed by Addl. Commissioner, Indore.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :

(i) According to the petitioner, since 1993-94, on the basis of an oral agreement to sale, he is in possession over the total area 32.040 hect. of land of 20 survey nos. situated in Village Delmi, Tehsil & District Dhar.

(ii) He filed an application before the Tehsildar, Dhar for recording his name and accordingly, in Case No. 38/A- 6(A)/2006-07, vide order dated 26.11.2007, his name has been recorded in Colum no.12 treating him to be in possession of the land. Her Highness had sold the land bearing Survey Nos. 370 and 372 by way of four different sale-deeds without handing over the possession to Respondent No.2 - Nazmuddin, who has got recorded his name in the revenue record in the year 2011 and thereafter, the revenue authorities have stopped recording name of the petitioner in Column No.12.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11237/2019 Deepak S/o. S.N. Suryavanshi V/s. Mranalinidevi & others.

(iii) The petitioner filed an application u/s. 115 and 116 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) before the Tehsildar on the ground that though the entire lands are owned by Her Highness Mranalinidevi and her name is recorded in Column No.3 as an owner but his is recorded in Column No.12 by virtue of his possession. The respondent No.2 - Nazmuddin, on the basis of sale-deed, has got mutated his name in the revenue records as an owner of the land, but still his name is liable to be continue in Column No.12 by virtue of his long possession.

(iv) Vide order dated 18.8.2015, the Tehsildar has dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction in regards to the correction of the entries in Column No.12 for the purposes of recording possession.

(v) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO, which has been dismissed vide order dated 18.9.2017. Thereafter, he preferred second appeal before the Addl. Commissioner and that too has been dismissed vide order dated 4.4.2019. Against the said order, petitioner preferred Revision before the Board of Revenue which has been dismissed vide order dated 1.5.2019 on the ground of jurisdiction, hence the present petition before this Court.

3. Shri S.C. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the name of the petitioner was recorded in Column No.12 when Her Highness was owner of the land bearing Survey Nos. 370 and 372. Behind his back, the entries in Column No.12 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11237/2019 Deepak S/o. S.N. Suryavanshi V/s. Mranalinidevi & others.

have been deleted after the sale of land to respondent No.2. Before passing order dated 18.8.2015, the Tehsildar had obtained the report of possession and vide Panchnama dated 28.3.2014, the petitioner was found in possession, therefore, his name is liable to be recorded in Column No.12 by virtue of his possession since last 20 years. Both the authorities have wrongly dismissed the application as well as appeal. U/s. 115 and 116 of the MPLRC, the revenue authorities are having power to correct the wrong entries in the revenue record ("Khasra Panchsala"), hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is claiming that he is in possession over the land bearing 20 Survey numbers total area 32.040 Hect. and owned by Her Highness Mranalinidevi. According to the petitioner, his name was recorded in Column No.12 in the revenue records as he is in possession. Since, Her Highness has sold the land in question to respondent No.2 whose name has been mutated in Column No.3, but the name of petitioner has been removed from Column No.12. The petitioner has applied for recording his name u/s. 115 and 116 of the MPLRC by way of correction in revenue records but the Tehsildar has rejected the application on the ground that he is not having jurisdiction to correct the entries in the revenue record especially in Colum no. 12.

5. The petitioner is claiming his possession over the land which is belonging to respondent No.2 on the basis of sale-deed THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11237/2019 Deepak S/o. S.N. Suryavanshi V/s. Mranalinidevi & others.

which is a registered document. Section 110 of the MPLRC provides that Patwari shall enter into a register prescribed for the purpose of every acquisition of right reported to him u/s. 109 or which comes to his notice from intimation from Gram Panchayat or any other source. Section 109 further provides that "any person who is lawfully acquiring any right or interest" in land shall report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the Patwari within six months from the date of such acquisition. Therefore, in view of Section 109 and 110 of MPLRC, the person who is having lawful right or interest in the land is entitled to apply for recording his name in the Govt. records.

6. According to section 112 of the MPLRC, when any document purporting to create, assign or extinguish any title to or any charge on land used for agricultural purposes, is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the Registering Officer shall send intimation to the Tehsildar having jurisdiction over the area in which the land is situate. Under section 113, the sub divisional officer may at any time, correct or cause to be corrected any clerical errors and any errors which the parties interested admit to have been made in the record of rights. As per Section 116, if any person is aggrieved by an entry made in the land records prepared under section 114 in respect of matters other than those referred to in section 108, he shall apply to the Tehsildar for its correction within one year of the date of such entry.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11237/2019 Deepak S/o. S.N. Suryavanshi V/s. Mranalinidevi & others.

7. From the reading of aforesaid provisions of law, it is clear that there is no provision in MPLRC for submitting an application for recording the name in Column No.12 of "Khasra Panch Sala". The entry in Column No.12 is only for the purpose of recording the possession of any person who has acquired possession legally. The possession has to be legal and declared by any competent authority or Court of law then only under section 109, any person based upon lawfully acquiring any right or interest in land shall report such acquisition to the Patwari within six months. In the present case, the petitioner did not acquire any right by way of any sale-deed or Will, etc. That under section 110, the Patwari is liable to make entry into the Register for the purpose of every acquisition of right reported to him under section 109. The mutation has to be done on the basis of title. Even on the basis of agreement to sale the application for mutation is not maintainable. There is no order of competent authority or decree of Court in favour of the petitioner declaring his title or possession over the land. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the authorities have not committed any error while rejecting the application filed petitioner

9. Consequently, this petition having no merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Date: 2019.09.19 18:12:38 +05'30'