Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anu Agrawal (Partner) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528
1 WP-14092-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14092 of 2024
ANU AGRAWAL (PARTNER)
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri Rajeev Mishra -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri Atul Anand Awasthy - Senior Advocate with Ms. Kriti Jain -
Advocate for the intervenor.
Shri Shashank Shekhar - Senior Advocate with Shri Amit Singh -
Advocate for the intervenor.
Shri Anurag Gohil - Advocate for the intervenor.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing Respondent No.2 to order mutation of land to be done in favor of United Spirits Limited/Respondent No.4 in accordance with Order dated 20.06.23 passed by Respondent No.2 in Case No. 546/A-6/2023-24/Gram Sarvar.
ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ or order setting aside the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528
2 WP-14092-2024 order dated 12.07.23 passed in case No. 546/A-6/2023-24/Gram Sarvar passed by Respondent No.2 be quashed;
iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or order directing Respondent No.3 to register the sale deed dated 24.09.23;
iv) Any other relief which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted for doing complete justice.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a partner of partnership firm M/s Harsh Packaging Company involved in the business of manufacturing of packing materials. Respondent No.4, a private company sold the land to the petitioner and the sale deed dated 24-09-2023 was executed between petitioner and respondent No.4 for a consideration of Rs.8.03 Crores towards the said sale. It is pointed out that earlier a Company Petition No.16/2000 was filed under Sections 391 to 394 of Companies Act, 1956 which was considered by this Court in original jurisdiction for sanction of amalgamation of applicant company. The said Company Petition was allowed on 17-05-2001 permitting amalgamation of the company as there was no objection from any quarters. The said order has attained finality as the same is not put to challenge anywhere. The amalgamation of Vitari Distilleries Limited with McDowell Spirit Limited was allowed by the Court. Thereafter, McDowell Spirit Limited changed its name to United Spirits Limited which was duly approved by the Registrar of Companies. United Spirits Limited is a subsidiary company of Diageo India Limited. Land bearing khasra numbers 80, 81, 96, 97, 98 and 99 (old khasra numbers 30, 31/1, 19/2/1, 25, 27 and 28/1) admeasuring total area 19.13 acres situated in village Sarwar, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal were registered in the name of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 3 WP-14092-2024 Vitari Distilleries Limited in revenue records. These lands along with construction admeasuring 1000 square meters and a temporary constructed area admeasuring 6575.6 square meters on the land were purchased by the petitioner from United Spirits Limited vide aforesaid sale deed.
3. The Collector of stamps vide order dated 23-09-2019 issued a demand notice of Rs.3.50 Crores as stamp duty on amalgamation of Vitari Distilleries Ltd with McDowell Spirits Limited. The same was put to challenge before the Additional Commissioner Bhopal and the order dated 23-09-2019 passed by the Collector of Stamps was quashed by order dated 09/05/2022 on an appeal preferred by respondent No.4 i.e. United Spirits Limited and the matter was remanded back to the Collector of Stamps to pass a fresh order with regard to quantum of stamps to be paid by respondent No.4. Thereafter a fresh order was passed and it was further directed that the Authorities to take note of the order dated 17-05-2001 passed by this Court in Company Petition as well as order dated 02-03-2002 passed by the Honorable Karnataka High Court regarding amalgamation of respondent No.4. In pursuance to the same, the Collector of Stamps recalculated the stamp duty which came up to be Rs.1.59 Crores liable to be paid by respondent No.4, out of which Rs.87.53 Lakhs were deposited by respondent No.4 on 04-12-2019 and the balance of Rs.71.35 Lakhs was deposited by respondent No.4 on 26-03-2023. Therefore, the entire stamp duty as directed by the Collector of stamps stands duly paid. Thereafter on September 2020, bids were invited by United Spirit Limited for selling of land and building situated in Sarwar village, Huzur Tehsil, Bhopal. The petitioner was Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 4 WP-14092-2024 shortlisted and was a successful bidder. The Tehsildar, Huzur vide order dated 20-06-2023 directed for mutation of the said lands in favor of respondent No.4 i.e. United Spirits Limited. Bhu-Adhikar Pustika were prepared showing the name of United Spirits Limited as owner of the property. Thereafter, by impugned order dated 12-07-2023, the Tehsildar Huzur exercising inherent powers under Section 32 of MPLRC reviewed its own order dated 20-06-2023 and stayed its execution and also directed District Registrar to tender a legal advice on requirement of registration of properties acquired via amalgamation. As the mutation order was stayed, the revenue record shows the name of Vitari Distillery Limited as the owner of the company. Thereafter, the legal advice was tendered by respondent No.3 on 22-09-2023 which points out that in terms of the order passed by this Court in Company Petition No.16/2000 as well as the order passed by the Karnataka High Court coupled with the fact that the stamp duty as required by Collector of stamps duly being paid, the proceeding were considered to be legal proceedings. It is further clarified that the amount has been deposited with the Government. Thereafter on the basis of the sale deed executed between the petitioner and the respondent No.4, applied for mutation of name on the land in question. However, because of an order dated 12-07- 2023 passed by the Tehsildar reviewing its own order without any authority of law and without seeking any prior permission from the Department, the mutation could not be carried out and the registration of the document that is sale deed could not be done. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4. It is argued that once the amalgamation of property in question is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 5 WP-14092-2024 duly approved by the High Court of Jabalpur as well as High Court of Karnataka coupled with the fact that the sale deeds have already been executed between the petitioner and respondent No.4 after paying due consideration amount of Rs. 8.03 Crores as well as stamp duty calculated by the Collector of stamps duly being paid, the registration Authority was having no other option except to register the sale deed. It is argued that the registration Authority is required to see that whether the parties have rightly entered into the settlement and consideration is paid coupled with the question of stamp duty being properly affixed on the sale document, the registration is required to be carried out. The registration Authority could not go into the question of ownership of the land in question. It is purely within the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. Tehsildar has already passed an order of mutation on 20-06-2023 in favour of respondent No.4/ United Spirits Ltd. However, the said order was reviewed exercising inherent power under Section 32 of MPLRC. While reviewing the order, no approval from any superior authority for reviewing the order was taken and a clarification is sought with respect to amalgamated properties and change of name of the company which was duly approved. The execution of order dated 20-06- 2023 was stayed till the clarification is received. There is no such observation made in the impugned order that the respondent No.4 was not authorized to sell the property to the petitioner. The reason assigned is that the property should be properly registered in the name of respondent No.4/ United Spirits Ltd. The record indicates the name of Vitari Distillery Ltd. in the revenue records. Therefore, the clarification was sought.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 6 WP-14092-2024
5. It is argued that once the amalgamation proceedings are permitted by the Court which has attained finality, thereafter change of name duly being approved by the Registrar of Companies, the Tehsildar was having no authority to seek a clarification to the aforesaid effect. He is only required to consider that whether the property is in the name of respondent No.4 or not. Therefore, the order passed by the Tehsildar reviewing his own order without proper sanction from the superior authority is per se illegal. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
6. On notice being issued, there is no reply filed by the respondents. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no requirement of filing a reply in the matter. The same can be argued on the basis of material available before the Court. It is contended that the Tehsildar has exercised power under section 32 of MPLRC for reviewing his own order as it is only a clarification which is sought by the Tehsildar with respect to registration of the companies after amalgamation and the earlier order was kept in abeyance. Until and unless the clarification is received from the Registrar of stamps, execution of earlier order could have been effect to. However, he fairly submits that the Registrar of Companies has given his reply on the clarification by document Annexure- P/12 filed by the petitioner.
7. Intervention applications being I.A. No.15328/2024, I.A. No.18318/2024 and I.A. No.3687/2025 have been filed on behalf of Someshwar Prasad Chakradahari, Mohammad Kasim, Samsun Disuza, Sunil Shukla and M/s Amkay Colonisers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. respectively. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 7 WP-14092-2024 intervention application i.e. I.A. No.15328/2024 is being filed on the ground that the original owner Kailash Bajpai allowed the intervenors to cultivate the land in the year 1999 over 16 acres of land and for the remaining 4 acres M/s Vitari Distilleries Ltd. was permitted to set up a distillery. The mutation order was passed by the Tehsildar on 20-06-2023 in favour of respondent No.4. Thereafter the intervenors have preferred a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division Bhopal which got registered as RCSA No.933/2023. The order passed by the Tehsildar was put to challenge by the intervenors in first appeal before the SDM Bhopal, which was dismissed on 06-11-2023 and the order dated 20-06-2023 being stayed by the Tehsildar and the subsequent proceedings were pending consideration, therefore the SDM dismissed that appeal. They again preferred an appeal before the Court of Commissioner. The same was again dismissed on 18-06- 2024. The said order was assailed in Miscellaneous Petition being M.P. No.3678/2024 in the name of Someshwar Prasad Chakradhari v. State of Madhya Pradesh. It is contended that despite having knowledge with respect to the factual aspects of the matter as well as the fact that the possession of the suit property is with the intervenors, they have not impleded them as party to the proceedings and also not impleaded in the present petition. The question of locus of the petitioner to file this petition was raised before this Court. It is submitted that how the relief which has been claimed in the petition can be granted to the petitioner. It was for the company i.e. United Spirits Ltd./respondent No.4 or McDowell to approach the Court for redressal of the grievances. How the petitioner is a aggrieved person and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 8 WP-14092-2024 having locus to file the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking possession of the property.
8. Similar applications were filed for intervention being I.A. No. 18318/2024 pointing out similar facts and filing of a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner which is pending consideration. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenors has relied upon the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine MP 977 and the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Zafar Ullah and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 1830.
9. Another application for bringing additional documents on record has been filed to bring on record the copy of the civil suit which is pending consideration. It is argued that once the Civil Courts are seized with the matter, then the Revenue Authorities should not have passed any order.
10. A detailed reply to the intervention applications has been filed pointing out the fact that the intervenors claimed to be in possession of the property in question, for which they have already preferred civil suits which are pending consideration as per the contentions mentioned in the intervention applications. They have to place before the Civil Court proper evidence to demonstrate that they have any ownership over the property in question. Until and unless they are having title over the property, they do not have any right to intervene in the petition. Even otherwise, for getting an injunction, they can file proper application before the Civil Court in pending Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 9 WP-14092-2024 Civil Suits, therefore the intervention applications should be rejected.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. From the perusal of the record, the undisputed facts are amalgamation of companies i.e. Vitari Distilleries Ltd. with McDowell Spirits Ltd by the order of the High Court in Company Petition No.16/2000 by order dated 17/05/2001 and also by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s Preston India Private Limited Vs. Office of Sub-Registrar and Another in Company Application No.65/2016. The same has not been put to challenge anywhere has attained finality. Change of name of McDowell Spirits Ltd to United Spirits Limited which was duly approved by the Registrar of Companies which is reflected from Annexure-P/2. The sale deed executed in favour of petitioner by respondent No.4 after receiving due consideration amount of Rs.8.03 Crores is also not disputed. The payment of stamp duty in terms of the orders passed by the Collector of stamps to the tune of Rs.1.59 Crores is not disputed. The order passed by the Tehsildar on 20-06-2023 ordering mutation of the land bearing survey numbers as aforesaid situated in Sarvar village, Bhopal in favour of the United Spirits Limited and subsequent order dated 12-07-2023 passed while exercising inherent power under section 32 of MPLRC reviewing its own earlier order and keeping the order dated 20-06-2023 in abeyance.
13. As far as intervention applications are concerned, there is no document placed on record by the intervenors to show that they are the owners of the property in question. If the contentions of intervention applications are seen, then it is clearly mentioned that they have preferred Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 10 WP-14092-2024 civil suits which are with respect to the land in question seeking declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of possession of the properties in question and those civil suits are pending consideration. Once they do not have any title over the property in question and they are contesting civil suits seeking declaration of title over the property in question, filing of intervention applications for intervening in the present matter is not permissible. They can raise all the grounds in the pending civil suits. They can also file an application seeking injunction in the pending civil suits, but as far as their right to intervene in the present matter is concerned, as they do not have any title over the property in question, merely on the basis of the possession, they cannot be permitted to intervene in the petition.
14. Accordingly, all the three intervention applications being I.A. No.15328/2024, I.A. No.18318/2024 and I.A. No.3687/2025 are rejected.
15. Now coming back to the merits of the case, it is argued that the Tehsildar was having no power to review its own order in terms of Section 32 of MPLRC without taking any proper sanction from the superior Authority.
16. Section 32 of MPLRC is important and is required to be seen, which reads as under:-
"32. Inherent power of Revenue Courts.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court."
17. From the perusal of aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 11 WP-14092-2024 the said powers can be exercised to do complete justice in the matter and to prevent the abuse of process of the court. They can be exercised within the Court itself and not beyond the Court. The orders should be passed judicially and carefully. The same can be passed when the Tehsildar finds that an order is being passed without notice to the other affected parties and is in violation of principles of natural justice. The provisions of Section 32 of MPLRC can be invoked for passing prohibitory orders. The inherent powers of the Court cannot override the express provisions of law. If there are specific provisions of the code dealing with a particular topic and they expressly or by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the powers of the Code or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to a matter, the inherent power of the Court cannot be involved in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Court. These powers cannot be exercised if its exercise is inconsistent with or comes into conflict with any of the powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred by any other provisions of the Code.
18. In the present case, the Tehsildar has exercised such powers and has kept in abeyance the earlier order of mutation in favour of respondent No.4 dated 20-06-2023.
19. The fact remains that if anyone is affected by order dated 20-06- 2023 i.e. mutation order, he or she can assail the same by filing an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer being the competent Court. The need for exercising powers under Section 32 of MPLRC is not available to the Tehsildar in the present facts and circumstance of the case. Even otherwise, the order dated 12-07-2023 does not reflect any reason assigned for Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 12 WP-14092-2024 exercising these powers. Rather, it only shows that the Tehsildar has sought a clarification with respect to amalgamation of the properties and subsequent registration with registration Authorities to which the clarification is also submitted i.e. Annexure-P/12 by the senior District Registrar.
20. It is a settled provision of law that the revenue Authorities are duty bound to comply with the provisions and to deal with the applications, the Tehsildar is duty bound to mutate the name in the revenue records based upon the sale deed until and unless there is any other legal impediment and the Registrar is duty bound to register a sale deed.
21. There is no dispute with respect to sale deed executed between the petitioner and respondent No.4. There is no dispute with respect to payment of consideration amount. The stamp duty duly ascertained by the Collector of stamps has been paid by respondent No.4 and the said aspect is not disputed by the State counsel. The District Registrar/ respondent No.3 is duty bound to register the sale deed when presented before him. He is not required to go into the question of title of the property in question.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi Vs. The Sub- Registrar & Ors. decided on 07/04/2025 in Civil Appeal No.3954/2025 has held as under:-
"15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 13 WP-14092-2024 stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub-Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer."
23. If the aforesaid observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Gopi (supra) is applied to the facts and circumstance of the present case, then it is clear that the Sub Registrar or the registering Authority has no function to ascertain whether the vendor has a title to the property in question or not. The registration Authority should be satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him. They admit execution of the said document subject to making procedural compliance and payment of consideration amount by the parties. In that situation, the document presented before him for registration should be registered.
24. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 12-07-2023 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal is unsustainable. It is hereby quashed. Respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to complete the proceedings with respect to mutation of name of respondent No.4 in the revenue records in pursuance to order dated 20-06-2023 and thereafter, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:34528 14 WP-14092-2024 respondent No.3 to register the sale deed presented before him by the petitioner as well as respondent No.4.
25. The entire exercise be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
26. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Shbhnkr Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 28-07-2025 18:41:48