Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vipin Kumar Sharma vs Rajesh on 12 September, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 577 OF 2019
Between:-
VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI
YASHWANT SINGH SHARMA, AGED
YEARS, R/O A-18, DWARIKAPURI,
GWALIOR (M.P.) THE THEN SECRETARY
OF LATE SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH
SHARMA SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI
GWALIOR
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PAWAN KUMAR DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJESH S/O LATE SHRI MOTIRAM
2. ARVIND S/O LATE SHRI MOTIRAM
3. URMILA D/O LATE SHRI MOTIRAM
4. KRISHNA D/O LATE SHRI MOTIRAM
5. BITOLI W/O LATE SHRI MOTIRAM
ALL R/O VILLAGE HASANPURA
(RATWAI) GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........RESPONDENTS
(SHRI R.K. GOYAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
This petition on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief:-
i) That, the impugned order dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by Additional Commissioner Gwalior may kindly be set aside.
ii) That, the order dated 26.06.2018 (Annexure P/4) may kindly be restored to its effect and operation.
iii) That, the revenue authorities may kindly be directed to correct the revenue entries and name of the petitioner be mutated on the abovesaid land.
iv) Any other suitable direction/relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case also may kindly be passed.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present petition in short are that agricultural land bearing Survey No.638 (Old Survey No.109/1) area 1.234 hectare is situated in village Ratwai, District Gwalior. The society namely Bhagwan Singh Sharma Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Gwalior purchased this land from one Shri Motiram Jatav, father of the respondents No. 1 to 4 and husband of respondent No. 5 by registered sale deed dated 07.02.2014. Thus, it is claimed that the petitioner is the Bhumiswami and in occupation of the land from the date of registered sale deed. Motiram expired on 13.10.2016. Although the respondents No. 2 to 5 were aware of the sale deed dated 07.02.2014, still they applied before the Naib Tahsildar for mutation of their names without making the petitioner party therein. The Naib Tahsildar without following the prescribed procedure and without issuing notice as per the procedure as well as without hearing the society, passed order dated 03.04.2017 and 3 accepted application filed by the respondents No. 2 to 5 and accordingly their names were also mutated in the revenue entries. After the society came to know about the fact of aforesaid mutation, the petitioner filed an appeal No.24/2016-17 before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (Rural), Gwalior and submitted registered sale deed. After perusing the record and hearing both the parties, the SDO allowed the appeal vide order dated 26.06.2018 with an observation that since respondents No. 2 to 5 have not denied the execution and existence of the registered sale deed dated 07.02.2014, therefore, directed for mutation of name of the society in the revenue record. Respondents No. 2 to 5 filed second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior which was registered as Case No.1075/2017-18/Appeal and the said appeal has been allowed by the impugned order dated 21.01.2019 on the ground that the signatures of Motiram on each and every page of sale deed appear to be doubtful and as well as the fact that why no steps for mutation of the name of the society were taken during life time of Motiram.
3. Challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that once there is a sale deed in favour of the society, then the revenue authorities have no power to adjudicate the genuineness of the sale deed. If anybody is aggrieved by the sale deed, then he must challenge the sale deed by filing civil suit. To buttress his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Ramdev Baba Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Asad Khan reported in 2020 (1) RN 274.
44. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. So far as the competence of the revenue authorities to adjudicate the correctness of the sale deed is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the correctness of the sale deed. However, under given facts and circumstances, revenue authorities can refuse to mutate the name of the purchaser with a direction him to obtain his declaration of title, for example, when an application for mutation is made after considerably long time, where the title of the alleged seller itself is in doubt, whether the property is a joint property or the seller was the owner of the same etc. The aforesaid examples are not exhaustive but they are merely indicative.
7. However, there is another aspect which had escaped from the notice of the SDO as well as the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner has filed a copy of the sale deed as Annexure P-2 and on the basis of the sale deed, the petitioner had sought mutation of name of the society. Against the order of mutation of the respondents No. 1 to 5, Vipin Kumar Sharma had filed an appeal by projecting himself to be the Secretary of Bhagwan Singh Sharma Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Gwalior. The appeal was not filed by Late Bhagwan Singh Sharma Shiksha Prasar Samiti. Merely because Vipin Kumar Sharma, was the Secretary of the said society, would not mean that the appeal was filed by Shiksha Prasar Samiti. Similarly, the present petition has also been filed by Vipin Kumar Sharma and not by Late Bhagwan Singh Sharma Shiksha Prasar Samiti, 5 Gwalior. Even from the cause title, it is clear that at present, Vipin Kumar Sharma is not the Secretary of Late Shri Bhagwan Singh Sharma Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Gwalior because the description of the petitioner in the cause title reads as under:-
Vipin Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Yashwant Singh Sharma, Aged Years, R/O A-18, Dwarikapuri, Gwalior (M.P.) The Then Secretary of Late Shri Bhagwan Singh Sharma Shiksha Prasar Samiti Gwalior
8. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the appeal before the SDO or petition before this Court is by Shiksha Prasar Samiti. Under these circumstances, the order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the SDO (Revenue), District Gwalior (Rural) in Appeal No.24/Appeal/2016- 17 cannot be given the stamp of approval, therefore, the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.1075/2017-18/Appeal is hereby affirmed although on different grounds.
9. With aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed on the ground of competency of the petitioner.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.09.14 20:04:01 +05'30'