Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nanni Bai vs Smt. Geeta Devi Judgement Given By: ... on 10 February, 2014
W.P. No. 2008/2014
(Nanni Bai and others Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi others )
10.02.2014
Shri D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Heard on the question of admission.
The petitioners have filed this petition being
aggrieved by order dated 01.10.2013 passed by the
Board of Revenue, Gwalior in Revision Case No.
22-2/2008 whereby the matter has been remitted back
to the Tahsildar, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur for re-
adjudication in the light of the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the remand by the trial court is contrary
to law as the Board of Revenue was required to decide
the matter on merits taking into consideration the rival
claims of the parties regarding mutation of their names
in the disputed property. It is submitted that the
proceedings before the civil court have no bearing on
the proceedings before the revenue court and in such
circumstances, the impugned order is bad in law and
suffers from the perversity and illegality, therefore,
deserves to be quashed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, it is observed that that the proceedings
pending before the revenue authority relate to mutation
of the names on the land in dispute. Both the parties
claim that their names should be mutated. It is also
clear that during the pendency of the proceedings,
both parties have approached the civil court by filing
civil suit no. 73-A/09 and a counter claim which has
been decided on 12.03.2012 and the suit for
declaration on the strength of a Will filed by the
respondents has been dismissed and at the same time
the counter claim filed by the petitioners regarding declaration of the land in question in their favour has also been dismissed.
From a perusal of the order it is clear that the Board of Revenue taking into consideration the judgment and decree passed by the competent civil court dated 12.03.2012 has remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar for re-adjudicating the same after giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned and deciding the matter afresh in the light of the judgment and decree of the civil court dated 12.03.2012.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that as the judgment and decree of the civil court in respect of the same land between the same parties has bearing on the issue, therefore, the Board of Revenue has not committed any illegality or perversity in remitting the matter back to the Tahsildar for re-adjudication of the same on merits in the light of the judgment and decree of the trial court after giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this court.
The petition being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
(R.S. Jha) Judge msp