Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Radha Kishan vs Smt Subhadra Bai on 9 July, 2019

             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         M.P. No. 3785/2018
     Radhakishan S/o. Late Ramratan V/s. Smt. Subhadrabai & others.
1

Indore, dated : 09.07.2019
              Petitioner by Shri V.K. Gangwal, Advocate.
              Respondents No.1 to 6 by Shri Yashpal Rathore,
Advocate.
              Heard on the question of admission.
                             ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by orders dated 24.2.2014 passed by Tehsildar, Sanwer; 21.8.2014 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Sanwer; 30.9.2014 passed by Additional Commissioner; and 14.6.2018 passed by Board of Revenue.

2. The petitioner submitted an application u/s. 121 of M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) for recording his name in Column No.12 of "Khasra Panch Sala" for the purpose of possession over the land bearing Survey No.217/1 situated at Village Bhagya, Tehsil Sanwer, District Indore.

3. According to the petitioner, father of respondents viz. Jagannath executed a lease-deed 30.9.1961 in respect of land in question in favour of his father and since then, he is in possession thereof. His father expired on 25.11.1981 and thereafter, Jagannath expired on 14.6.2002. On the basis of conditions of the lease-deed, his name is liable to be recorded in Column No.12 of "Khasra Panch Sala".

4. Respondent appeared before the Tehsildar and submitted that Jagannath never executed any lease-deed in THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No. 3785/2018 Radhakishan S/o. Late Ramratan V/s. Smt. Subhadrabai & others.

favour of father of the petitioner. The so-called lease-deed is an unregistered document hence cannot be looked into.

5. The Tehsildar rejected the application on the ground that in MPLRC, there is no provision for recording possession of any person other than owner in Column No.12. Being aggrieved by said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO, Sanwer, who also dismissed the same vide order dated 21.8.2014. Second appeal preferred before Additional Commissioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 30.9.2014 and the revision preferred before the Board of Revenue has also been dismissed vide order dated 14.6.2018, hence this petition before this Court.

6. Shri V.K. Gangwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that u/s. 121 of MPLRC, the State Government made make rules for regulating the preparation, maintenance and revision of land records required for the purpose of this Code. Under the Rules framed by the State Government, the Patwari is bound to make entry of possession in "Khasra Panch Sala" in accordance with actual inspection of the field made by him. Therefore, a direction be issued to the Tehsildar for recording the name of the petitioner in Column No.12 of "Khasra Panch Sala".

7. On the other hand, Shri Yashpal Rathor argued in support of impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No. 3785/2018 Radhakishan S/o. Late Ramratan V/s. Smt. Subhadrabai & others.

8. The petitioner is claiming HIS possession over the land belonging to respondents on the basis of lease-deed dated 30.9.1961. Admittedly, the lease-deed is an unregistered 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 provides that "any person 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.

9. U/s. 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. U/s. 113, the SDO 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 u/s. 114 in respect of matters other than those referred to in Section 108, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No. 3785/2018 Radhakishan S/o. Late Ramratan V/s. Smt. Subhadrabai & others.

he shall apply to the Tehsildar for its correction within one year of the date of such entry.

10. From the reading of aforesaid provisions of law, it is clear that there is no provision of 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. U/s. 109, any person who lawfully acquiring any right or interest in land shall report such acquisition to the Patwari within six months. In the present case, the petitioner or his father did not acquire any right by way of any sale-deed or Will, etc.U/s. 110, the Patwari is liable to make entry into the Register for the purpose of every acquisition of right reported to him u/s. 109. Even otherwise, the so-called lease-deed in favour of father of the petitioner is an unregistered lease-deed which does not confer any right or title for want of registration. The mutation have to be recorded on the basis of title. Even on the basis of unregistered sale-deed, 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 possession over the land. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the authorities have not committed any error while rejecting the application filed u/s. 121 of the MPLRC.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No. 3785/2018 Radhakishan S/o. Late Ramratan V/s. Smt. Subhadrabai & others.

11. 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: 2019.07.15 11:07:59 +05'30'