Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sharfunisha vs The Collector on 30 April, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 W.P. No.28937/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 30th OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 28937 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. SHARFUNISHA, W/O DR. MOHD.
AKHTAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARSS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O
CIVIL LINES, ANSARI FISH, DE SILVA
COMPOUND, DELIGHT TALKIES
JABALPUR, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ABDUL BARI, S/O ABDUL SHAKOOR,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE BUSINESS,
R/O CIVIL LINES, ANSARI FISH, DE
SILVA COMPOUND, DELIGHT
TALKIES JABALPUR, TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHAHINA W/O ABDUL RASHID, AGED
ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE, R/O CIVIL LINES,
ANSARI FISH, DE SILVA COMPOUND,
DELIGHT TALKIES JABALPUR,
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DR. MOHD. AKHTAR CHOUDHARY,
S/O MOHD. ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 77
YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
BUSINESS, R/O CIVIL LINES, ANSARI
FISH, DE SILVA COMPOUND,
DELIGHT TALKIES JABALPUR,
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RAFIQUE S/O ABDUL QAIYUM, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRIVATE BUSINESS, R/O CIVIL LINES,
ANSARI FISH, DE SILVA COMPOUND,
2 W.P. No.28937/2023
DELIGHT TALKIES JABALPUR,
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MOHD. AAMIR ANSARI, S/O ABDUL
RASHID ANSARI, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
BUSINESS, R/O CIVIL LINES, ANSARI
FISH, DE SILVA COMPOUND,
DELIGHT TALKIES JABALPUR,
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE COLLECTOR JABALPUR,
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. R.P. KANOJIYA, S/O LATE SHRI M.L.
KANOJIYA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O 117, P.P. COLONY, GWARIGHAT
ROAD, JABALPUR, TAHSIL AND
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL
COMMISSIONER, JABALPUR
DIVISION, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RITWIK PARASAR- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND SHRI R.P.
KANOJIYA- RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN PERSON)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by Additional 3 W.P. No.28937/2023 Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur in Case No. 634/Appeal/2022-23 by which the order dated 25.06.1955 passed by Settlement Officer ADC in Revenue Case No. 261/1954-55 has been set aside.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that water body having area 28.62 acres in Khasra No. 192 situated in Village Tilhari, District Jabalpur was recorded as Talab in Misal Khasra of the year 1909-1910. Thereafter, on 25.06.1955, the Settlement Officer passed an order to the effect that in light of provisions of Section 5(f)(g) of Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act,1950 (in short Act 1950), the aforesaid property shall continue to remain in the name of Ex-Malgujar subject to provision of Sections 47 & 63 of M.P.L.R. Code and settled the aforesaid land in favour of Ex-Malgujar Raibahadur Sawai Singhai and recorded the said land as wazib-ul-urz. It is submitted that the said order remained unchallenged. However, Jagdish Badgaiya filed an application under Section 7 of Act, 1950 for taking possession of the Government land. The said application was rejected by Additional Collector (Rural), District Jabalpur by order dated 29.09.2017 passed in Case No. 89/B-121/2013-14. It is submitted that thereafter respondent No. 2 by claiming himself to be the resident of Village Tilhari, filed an appeal under Section 44 of M.P.L.R. Code on 21.03.2022 against the order dated 25.06.1955 passed in Revenue Case No. 261/1994-1955 by Settlement Officer ADC. Along with the said appeal, respondent No. 2 also filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. In the application it was mentioned that the Public had filed a case before the Collector under Section 7 of Act, 1950 for taking possession of land and by vesting in the State. The respondent No. 2 4 W.P. No.28937/2023 came to know about the order dated 25.06.1955 from the reply filed by petitioners. Respondent No. 2 got the information on 23.06.2017 and accordingly he made an application for obtaining certified copy of impugned order. However, respondent No. 2 was informed that no such record is deposited in the office of Collector, Jabalpur. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 moved an application before the Collector, Jabalpur on 31.07.2018 for inspection of the record of case No. 261/A-02/54-55. The Additional Collector (Rural), Jabalpur Dismissed the application filed by Jagdish Badgaiya on 29.09.2017. The respondent No. 2 applied for inspection of Case No. 261/A-02/1954-55 on 31.07.2018. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 filed an application for grant of certified copy of order dated 25.06.1955 on 10.08.2018 and certified copy was supplied on 14.08.2018. Thus, it was claimed that there is a delay of 3 years and 7 months in filing the appeal which is liable to be condoned.
3. The petitioners also raised an objection before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur with regard to the locus of respondent No. 2 to file an appeal because he was not a party in the application filed under Section 7 of the Act, 1950.
4. The application for condonation of delay and objection regarding the locus of respondent No. 2 was decided by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur by order dated 27.03.2023 passed in Case No. 133/Appeal/2022-23. Although the copy of order dated 27.03.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur has not been placed on record but the certified copy of the same was provided by respondent No. 2 for perusal by this Court.
5. From the said order, it is clear that it was opined by Additional Commissioner that since, the encroachment over the Government 5 W.P. No.28937/2023 Land/Tank will give rise to a fresh cause of action on each and everyday, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the objection with regard to the locus standi of respondent No. 2 was also rejected.
6. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that thereafter by the impugned order dated 21.09.2023, passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur filed in Case No. 634/Appeal/2022-23 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 25.06.1955 passed by Settlement Officer on the ground that the Tank in question was recorded in the name of State Government as per the Khasra of the year 1909-10. Although the Settlement Officer had directed for recording the names of Raibahadur, Singhai Munnalal and Ramchandra but had not given any specific finding as to whether they were entitled to hold the Tank or not? Thereafter by exercising power under Section 32 of MPLR Code, the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur held that the Tank which was recorded in the name of Government in the year 1909- 10 was illegally settled in the name of a private person which cannot be done and even the Additional Collector (Rural), Jabalpur also did not consider the said aspect while exercising his power under Section 7 of Act, 1950. Accordingly, the order dated 25.06.1955 passed by Settlement Officer ADC in Case No. 261/1954-55 was set aside and it was directed that the name of State Government be recorded in the revenue records.
7. Challenging the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that in fact the State Government had suppressed all the material documents. When an application under Section 7 of Act, 1950 was filed 6 W.P. No.28937/2023 by one Jagdish Badgaiya, a statement was made by State Authorities that the record of Case No. 261/1954-55, in which order dated 25.06.1955 was passed by which the name of Raibahadur Singhai and others was mutated in the revenue record is not traceable. It is submitted that the petitioners have purchased the aforesaid property from descendants of Raibahadur Singhai by multiple sale deeds which have been filed as Annexures-P/1, P/2 and P/3. It is submitted that when the respondent No. 2 filed an appeal against the order dated 25.06.1955, then he himself had filed a certified copy of order dated 25.06.1955 which clearly means that the record of case No. 261/1954-55 was available but it was deliberately not produced before the Additional Collector (Rural), Jabalpur in the proceedings initiated under Section 7 of Act, 1950. It is further submitted that according to the State Authorities, the record after 1910 till 1954 is not available. It is submitted that since the State is the custodian of the record and if the same is not available, then it is the State who has to suffer the adverse consequences. It is submitted that although in the Khasra of the year 1954, the State Government was recorded as owner of Tank in question but how the name of State Government was recorded has not been clarified. It is submitted that it is well established principle of law that recording of any entry in revenue record without there being any order by the competent authority is illegal and has no sanctity in the eye of law. The Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur has given an incorrect finding which is contrary to the record that in the Misal Khasra of 1909-10, the Government was recorded as the owner. By relying on the Misal Khasra of 1909-10, it is submitted that it is merely mentioned as "Water and Talab". The word Government was not 7 W.P. No.28937/2023 mentioned. Therefore, it is clear that the order of Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur by which the appeal has been allowed is based on something which is neither here nor there and is contrary to the record. It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 had filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Although he tried to claim that he came to know about the order dated 25.06.1955 on 23.06.2017 for the first time but a bald statement made by respondent No. 2 in this regard is not sufficient.
8. Furthermore, respondent No. 2 had claimed that there is a delay of approximately 3 years and 7 months in filing an appeal but in fact the order dated 25.06.1955 was challenged and the appeal was filed on 21.03.2022 i.e. after 67 years of the impugned order. Thus, the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur committed a material illegality by condoning the delay.
9. Furthermore, It is submitted that it is clear from the order dated 27.03.2023, the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur has not considered the averments made by respondent No. 2 in his application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and has decided the application under the pretext that the encroachment over the land would give up a fresh cause of action on every day.
10. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that since the possession of the petitioners is by virtue of an order passed by Settlement Officer ADC on 25.06.1955 as well as by virtue of a sale deed, then it cannot be said that the petitioners had encroached upon the Government Tank and thus, the reasons assigned by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur for condonation of delay are not born out of the 8 W.P. No.28937/2023 record and hence the order dated 27.03.2023 is also liable to be set aside.
11. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent No. 2 that in khasra panchshala of the year 1954, the State was recorded as owner of the Tank in dispute. However, he fairly conceded that in the Misal Khasra of the year 1909-10, the Government was not record as the owner of the Tank but merely the word "Water and Tank" was mentioned. He further admitted categorically that Raibahadur Singhai was the Ex- Malgujar of the locality. He further relied upon Section 5(g) of Act, 1950 in support of his contentions. However, he submitted that since he is the local resident of Tilhari, therefore, he has a locus to file an appeal against the order dated 25.06.1955 and he once again supported the reasons assigned by him in his application under Section 5 of Limitation Act but fairly conceded that from plain reading of order dated 27.03.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur in case No. 133/Appeal/2022-23, it is clear that no reasons have been assigned to give a finding that respondent No. 2 has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
12. It is submitted by counsel for State that in Misal Khasra of 1909- 10, the name of the Government was recorded as owner of the Tank in the revenue records and similarly in the year 1954, the name of State Government was recorded as owner of the Tank and therefore, it is submitted that the Settlement Officer ADC had wrongly settled the Tank in favour of Raibahadur Singhai, Ex-Malgujar by order dated 25.06.1955 in Revenue Case No. 261/1954-55.
13. However, when the counsel for the respondent was directed to go through the Misal Khasra of year 1909-10, then he fairly conceded that 9 W.P. No.28937/2023 in the said khasra only Water and Tank has been mentioned and the Government has not been recorded as the owner of the said Tank.
14. Accordingly, the counsel for respondent was directed to explain that by which order the name of State Government was recorded in the Khasra Panchshala of the year, 1954.
15. Faced with such a situation, counsel for respondent/State prayed for time to file return.
16. It is really unfortunate that no such prayer was made at the beginning of the arguments and only when the counsel for respondent/State found himself to be in a tight corner, then he started making prayer for adjournment.
17. This petition has arisen out of the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur. The Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division Jabalpur had mentioned a wrong fact that the Government was recorded as owner of Tank in Misal Khasra of the year, 1909-10. The Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur did not point out in his order that by which order the name of the State Government was recorded as owner of the Tank in khasra of the year 1954.
18. This Court had issued notices to the respondents on 12.12.2023. The office of Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur by letter dated 17.01.2024 had sent an information by registered post to the Collector, Jabalpur with a request to appoint OIC and to file return. However, in spite of that no return has been filed. Thus, it is clear that the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur was served with the notices. He had also requested the Collector, Jabalpur by his letter dated 17.01.2024 to appoint OIC but no action was taken by the respondents.
10 W.P. No.28937/202319. Once, the respondents have decided not to file the return, then it is not necessary for this Court to grant additional time to State Counsel specifically when the case was already argued at length by the counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for respondent No. 2.
20. The State Government is also like an ordinary litigant and cannot act as a privilege litigant. It is true that the State Government has to act through its functionaries but if the functionaries of the State Government are negligent in protecting the interest of the State, then it is for the State to take action against their own OIC.
21. If the Collector, Jabalpur did not appoint any OIC, then it is for the State to take action against Collector, Jabalpur or if OIC was appointed by Collector, Jabalpur, then it is for the State to take action against the OIC but the State Government cannot ask for adjournment after the matter was argued at length by the counsel for petitioners as well as counsel for respondent No. 2.
22. Accordingly, the prayer for adjournment to file return is rejected.
23. Furthermore, this Court has to decide the case only on the basis of material which was available before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur.
24. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
25. Petitioners have filed the copy of Misal Khasra of the year 1909- 1910 and as per this khasra, Government has not been recorded as the owner and word "Water" is mentioned in Column No. 4 and tank is mentioned in last column. Thus, Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur added the word Government on his own which runs contrary to their own Misal Khasra of the year 1909-10. Thus, it is clear that in the year 1909-10 the Government was not recorded as the owner 11 W.P. No.28937/2023 of the property. Thereafter, it is the case of parties that Khasra Panchsala of the year 1910-11 till 1953-54 are missing. The State Government is the custodian of these documents and if these documents are missing, then it is for the State Government to face the adverse consequences but one thing is clear that in fact the functionaries of State Government are hiding the documents. In the proceedings initiated before the Additional Collector (Rural), Jabalpur under Section 7 of 1950, the record pertaining to order dated 25.06.1955 was not produced. It was specifically mentioned by Additional Collector (Rural) in his order dated 29.09.2017 that in spite of multiple efforts the original record of order dated 25.06.1955 could not be obtained. Thus, it is clear that State authorities had tried to suppress the material record from the Court of Additional Collector (Rural), Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. If record was not traceable and it was not made available to the Additional Collector in spite of his repeated directions, then it is very surprising that the same record was made available to respondent No.2 on 31.07.2018 and ultimately the certified copy of the same was also provided to him on 14.08.2018. It is shocking that State Authorities are hiding their documents from the Courts but they are making it available to the private person. Thus, the stand of the State that record of khasra of the year 1910-11 to 1953-54 is not available cannot be accepted and since those documents have been deliberately suppressed by respondent/State, therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn. The Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur has not pointed out the basis on which the State Government was recorded as owner in the Khasra Panchsala of the year 1954.
26. It is well established principle of law that any entry in the revenue 12 W.P. No.28937/2023 record without there being any order by the competent authority is non est and has no sanctity in the eyes of law.
27. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether there is any possibility of recording of name of Ex-Malgujar in the khasras of the year 1910-11 to 1953-54 or not?
28. As already pointed out, respondent No.2 has categorically admitted that Raibahadur Singhai was the Ex-Malgujar of the locality. Respondent No.2 was repeatedly asked as to whether he is making this statement with full responsibility or not then he said that since he is the local resident of the area and is aged about 70 years, therefore, he is making the statement with full sense of responsibility that Raibahadur Singhai was the Ex-Malgujar of the locality.
29. The petitioners have purchased the property from descendents of Ex-Malgujar Raibahadur Singhai. Neither respondent No.2 nor other respondents have disputed the fact that Raibahadur Singhai was the Ex- Malgujar of the locality, therefore, it is clear that possibility of recording of his name in the revenue records of the year 1910-11 up to 1953-54 is not ruled out.
30. Under these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the State authorities to explain that by which order the name of State Government was recorded in revenue record in the year 1954 but they have miserably failed in discharging their burden.
31. Section 5(g) of Act, 1950 reads as under:
"5. Certain properties to continue in possession of proprietor or other person.-Subject to the provisions in sections 47 and 63-
(a) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(b) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(c) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
13 W.P. No.28937/2023
(d) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(e) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(f) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(g) all tanks and embankments (bandhans)
belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person which are situate on land other than village site or occupied land and the beds of which are under cultivation of such proprietor or such other person shall belong to or be held by such proprietor or such other person and the land under such tanks and embankments shall be settled with such proprietor or such other person on such terms and conditions as the State Government may determine;"
32. Thus, it is clear that all tanks and embankments belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person which are situated on land other than the village site or occupied land and the beds of which are under cultivation of such proprietor or such other person shall belong to or be held by such proprietor or such other persons and the land under such tanks and embankments shall be settled with such proprietor or such other person on such terms and conditions as the State Government may determine. Therefore, when the respondents have not disputed that Raibahadur Singhai was the Ex-Malgujar, therefore, in view of Section 5(g) of Act, 1950 the said Tank was liable to be settled with Ex-Malgujar.
33. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that Settlement Officer ADC did not commit any mistake by settling the Tank in question in favour of Ex-Malgujar by order dated 25.06.1955 passed in Case No.261/1954-55. The Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur committed a material illegality by misinterpreting the Misal Khasra of year 1909-10 and by wrongly 14 W.P. No.28937/2023 holding that State was recorded as the owner of the tank in the said khasra.
34. Since respondents have failed to prove that under whose order State Government was recorded as Bhumiswami in the year 1954, therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that order dated 21.09.2023 is bad in law being based on incorrect facts.
35. It is further submitted by counsel for petitioners that the rights of the villagers by virture of tank being recorded as wazib-ur-arz would be protected and they would not interfere with the rights of villagers to use the said tank.
36. Before parting with this order this Court would also like to pass comment on the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur on an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
37. It is true that while considering the application for condonation of delay the Court must adopt a lenient view but should also try to find out as to whether the appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay or not?
38. In the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act respondent No.2 had claimed that he came to know about the order dated 25.06.1955 on 23.06.2017 and obtained the certified copy of the same on 14.08.2018 and it is clear from the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 the appeal was filed on 21.03.2022. Once respondent No.2 was already in possession of order dated 25.06.1955 having obtained the certified copy of the same on 14.08.2018, then why he filed the appeal after 3 and 1/2 years has not been explained by respondent No.2. There is not a single whisper with regard to delay in not filing the appeal 15 W.P. No.28937/2023 immediately after obtaining certified copy of the order dated 25.06.1955.
39. Furthermore, in order to claim knowledge, the person is also under obligation to explain that in spite of exercise of reasonable diligence he could not gather the information.
40. Section 17 of Limitation Act reads as under:
"17. Effect of fraud or mistake.--(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,--
(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or
(b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or
(c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or
(d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which--
(i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or
(ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased 16 W.P. No.28937/2023 for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had been made, or
(iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the document had been concealed. (2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree or order within the period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made after the expiry of the said period extend the period for execution of the decree or order:
Provided that such application is made within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may be."
41. Therefore, it is clear that period of limitation would not begin to run unless and until the person has discovered the fraud or mistake by exercising his reasonable diligence. The application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is completely silent about the fact as to why he was sitting idle in the matter from 25.06.1955. The appeal was not filed with a delay of 3 and 1/2 years but it was filed after 67 years of the impugned order.
42. Since petitioners have not encroached upon the Tank in question and were in possession by virtue of order dated 25.06.1955, therefore, the observation made by Additional Commissioner in its order dated 27.03.2023 passed in Case No.133/Appeal/2022-23 that encroachment would give rise to fresh cause of action on everyday is misconceived.
17 W.P. No.28937/202343. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of considered opinion that order dated 21.09.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in Case No.634/Appeal/2022-23 cannot be given the stamp of judicial approval, accordingly, it is quashed and the order dated 25.06.1955 passed by Settlement Officer ADC, is hereby restored.
44. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that during pendency of this petition, respondents have scored out their name from the revenue records and have mutated the name of State Government as owner.
45. Accordingly, respondents are directed to immediately restore back the mutation entry which was prevailing on the date of filing of appeal by respondent No.2.
46. The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.
47. No order as to costs.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE AL/vc Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2024.05.02 16:47:22 +05'30'