Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ranjan Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31626
1 WP-38526-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 38526 of 2024
RANJAN PATHAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naval Kumar Gupta - Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri
Y.P.S.Rathore - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kaushlendra Singh Tomar - Govt. Advocate for respondent
No.1/State.
None for the legal heirs of respondent No.2, i.e., 2(a) & 2(b),
though served.
Reserved on : 13/11/2025
Delivered on : 04/12/2025
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State counsel.
The instant petition was initially filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and was registered as W.P. No.4803/2015. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.11.2024, it was permitted to be converted into a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the instant writ petition has been registered.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 12/4/2025 7:28:08 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31626 2 WP-38526-2024
2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 05.11.2014 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Collector, Gwalior in suo motu revision proceedings bearing Case No.9/2013-14, whereby the mutation order passed on 15.07.2010 in favour of the petitioner in respect to the portion of lands bearing Survey Nos.2544/1, 2544/2, 2545 and 2546 (hereinafter referred to as lands in question) situated at Village Kota Lashkar, Tehsil and District Gwalior, has been set aside and liberty was granted to the petitioner to get his ownership and inheritance rights adjudicated from the competent Court and thereafter move application for mutation afresh.
3. The petition also challenges the order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Board of Revenue (M.P.), whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 05.11.2014 passed by the Collector, Gwalior has been dismissed.
4. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as follows:
4.1The petitioner, claiming himself to be the son of Late Nirnaydas Pathak, moved an application for mutation in respect of the lands in question before the Tehsildar on the basis of inheritance after the death of Nirnaydas Pathak. The Tehsildar passed an order dated 15.07.2010, whereby the lands in question were mutated in the name of the petitioner.
4.2It appears that respondent No.2 Smt. Archana Pathak (now Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 12/4/2025 7:28:08 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31626 3 WP-38526-2024 substituted since dead) the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, moved a complaint before the Collector, Gwalior on 07.04.2014 (Annexure-P/3) that the petitioner has succeeded in getting mutation order dated 15.07.2010 passed on the basis of fraud and therefore, appropriate legal action in the matter was requested for.
4.3On the complaint so received, the Collector called for an enquiry report from the Tehsildar Gwalior Gram Kota Lashkar, Tehsil and District Gwalior, who submitted its report on 25.08.2014. The Collector on the basis of the said report and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the order dated 05.11.2014 in suo motu revision proceedings whereby, the mutation order dated 15.07.2010 was set aside and liberty was granted to the petitioner to get his right of ownership and inheritance adjudicated from the competent Court and move application for mutation afresh.
4.4The petitioner aggrieved by the said order, challenged the same in a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dated 01.07.2015. These are the orders under challenge in the instant writ petition.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the lands in question are the private lands as per the revenue records since beginning. None of the rights of any of the persons were infringed by the mutation order dated 15.07.2010. Nobody ever raised any objection on the order dated 15.07.2010. Just because some dispute arose between the petitioner and his daughter-in-law (respondent No.2), Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 12/4/2025 7:28:08 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31626 4 WP-38526-2024 she made a frivolous complaint to the Collector alleging that the petitioner has succeeded in getting the mutation order dated 15.07.2010 passed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. By referring to the complaint made by respondent No.2 to the Collector (Annexure-
P/3), learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the bare perusal of the said complaint would also reveal that no relief in her favour or violation of her any property rights was alleged in the complaint by respondent No.2, just because, there was some dispute between the petitioner and her, a frivolous complaint was moved before the Collector which ought not to have been taken cognizance by the Collector. By referring to the enquiry report dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure-P/4) and the findings recorded by the Collector in its impugned order dated 05.11.2014, learned senior counsel submits that the Collector admitted the fact that the mutation order dated 15.07.2010 was passed by the Tehsildar after following the due process of law. Due publication of advertisement was made by the Tehsildar, no objections were received, the Patwari report was also called for and the statements of the witnesses were also recorded prior to passing of the order dated 15.07.2010.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that even after finding that there has not been any procedural lapse or dispute in respect of passing of the order dated 15.07.2010, the Collector has interfered into the matter stating that now since new facts have come to the notice and prior to passing of the order of mutation, certain entries in Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 12/4/2025 7:28:08 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31626 5 WP-38526-2024 the revenue records of Samvat 2060 (year 2003) are now being said to be erroneous, therefore, the Tehsildar ought to have passed the order of mutation only after obtaining order from the competent Court, which as per the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was wholly unwarranted.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner namely, Ranjan Pathak, is the son of Late Nirnaydas, who was the son of Haridas resident of Harkotaseer. As per the Misal bandobast 2007-08, the land in question has been inherited by the successors as per the Guru-Chela practice. The land came to be inherited by the father of the petitioner under the said system and thereafter, the petitioner got the lands mutated on the basis of inheritance. Just because some mistake has been committed in the revenue records earlier and instead of Guru, Putra has been stated, the petitioner cannot be made responsible for the same. That apart, no other person has claimed right over the said property. In the khasra entry, in coloumn No.3, in place of Nirnaydas Guru Baba Guru Dayal, Nirnaydas s/o Dayaldas Bairagi was entered erroneously.
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further argues that the lands in question are the private lands. The mutation order was never challenged in a statutory appeal by any of the persons claiming himself to be aggrieved by the order of mutation. There was no occasion for the Collector to register suo motu proceedings to examine the correctness of the mutation order passed in the 2010 on the complaint made by Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 12/4/2025 7:28:08 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31626 6 WP-38526-2024 daughter-in-law of the petitioner, particularly when the daughter-in-law of the petitioner did not claimed any right in the lands in question. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the orders impugned deserves to be quashed and the petition deserves to be allowed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the State, by referring to its return filed, submits that all what petitioner has argued are disputed questions of fact. In an enquiry, the Collector has come to the conclusion that certain aspects coming into knowledge after passing of the order of mutation, requires consideration and therefore, the mutation order has been set aside. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to establish his claim before the civil Court. The order impugned in the petition was passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the orders impugned in the instant writ petition do not warrant any interference by this Court.
10.Records of the case indicate that the Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of LRs of deleted respondent No.2, now impleaded as respondent No.2(a) and 2(b). When the matter was taken up on 10.10.2025, none appeared for respondents No.2(a) and 2(b), and therefore, the matter was adjourned for four weeks awaiting their representation. On 13.11.2025 also, none appeared for respondents No.2(a) and 2(b). The matter is pending since the year 2015 (earlier as W.P. No.4803/2015). Even though, the respondent No.2 was represented and the Vakalatnama was filed by her but no return was filed by respondent No.2. No reply has been filed even by the LRs of respondent Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 12/4/2025 7:28:08 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31626 7 WP-38526-2024 No.2, i.e., respondents No.2(a) and 2(b). Even their counsel did not appeared in spite of opportunity granted.
11.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State counsel.
12.It is undisputed as discernible from records that the lands in question on which, the name of the petitioner was mutated are not the government lands. The Collector on the basis of report received from the Tehsildar on 25.08.2014 in the impugned order dated 05.11.2014 specifically records that the mutation order dated 05.07.2010 was passed by the Tehsildar after following the process as contemplated under Section 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, inasmuch as the advertisement was published, the report from the Patwari was called for and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Since nobody objected the claim of the petitioner seeking mutation on the basis of inheritance, the mutation order dated 15.07.2010 was passed.
13.Even in the complaint filed by respondent No.2 before the Collector, it was not her case that any of her rights in the property in question were being infringed vide mutation order dated 15.07.2010. The return of the State also does not indicate that either the rights of the State Government or the rights of any third party are infringed by the mutation order dated 15.07.2010. It is fairly well settled that the mutation entry is not a document of title. Even in the instant writ petition, the private respondents either by way of filing any return or by representation, have not opposed the claim of the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 12/4/2025 7:28:08 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31626 8 WP-38526-2024
14.In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any person claiming any right in respect of the lands in question, subjecting the petitioner to trial for establishing his ownership and inheritance rights for continuation of the mutation entry recorded vide order dated 15.07.2010 may not be justified.
15.Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 05.11.2014 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Collector, Gwalior and order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior are hereby set aside.
16.It is hereby made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order are restricted only for the limited purposes of deciding the mutation proceedings, and this Court has not commented upon the ownership and title of the petitioner over the lands in question. In case the same is challenged before any civil Court, the same has to be decided on its own merits without being influenced from any of the observations made in the instant writ petition.
17.With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.
18.Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE Adnan Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 12/4/2025 7:28:08 PM