Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chatar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2014
WP No.9989/2014
11.07.2014
Shri Sudhir Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Nirmala Nayak, learned Govt. Adv. for State.
Heard.
On behalf of the petitioner, this petition is preferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India without challenging any order/judgment of
any subordinate Court or the authority for issuing the appropriate writ
against the authorities of the respondents for the following reliefs:-
"(1) To kindly issue appropriate writ and direction to the respondent to decide and dispose of the application of the petitioner for mutation and direction (Annexure-P-4) within 15 days or within the time may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."
In the course of arguments, I am apprised by the counsel that initially some land of the petitioner was declared surplus under the provisions of Urban Ceiling Act, but subsequently in a Civil suit filed by the petitioner, the decree was passed and according to such decree, the petitioner has a right to get it the mutation on the aforesaid land and possession, and in this regard, he has also filed the execution proceedings before the concerning Civil Court and execution proceedings is still pending. In pendency of such execution, the petitioner has filed the application (Annexure-P-4) for mutation in the Court of Tehsildar on the strength of such decree, such proceeding was not concluded by the Tehsildar, then he has filed the writ petition No.18272/13, for appropriate direction to the Tehsildar. The same was disposed of vide order dated 18.11.2013 with a direction to the Tehsildar to decide the case on merits within four months. In continuation he said that, the concerning Tehsildar has not decided such matter within such prescribed period, on which he has approached to the higher authorities of the respondents with the application to carry out his mutation over such land but, such application is still pending before such authority of the State and the same is not being considered hence, the petitioner has come with this petition to this Court.
On asking the petitioner's counsel that in view of the earlier direction if the Tehsildar is not taking the steps to conclude the proceedings of the mutation case, then he has a remedy to file the contempt petition before this Court then, how this petition could be entertained. I also asked the counsel that unless the mutation proceedings is concluded by the Tehsildar, then under what provision he has approached to the higher authorities of revenue Section for alleged dispute specially when the execution proceedings of the decree is pending before the Civil Court for recording the satisfaction of the decree and in such premises, except the Court of Tehsildar or executing Court of Civil Court, no other authority including higher authority of the State, is empowered to direct either Tehsildar or to the Civil Court and in such situation, how this petition for issuing the direction to the State authorities for hearing such application could be entertained on which, instead to argue further, petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the appropriate applications either in the Civil Court in the pending execution proceedings or in the Court of Tehsildar in pending revenue proceedings.
Considering the aforesaid prayer, the petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with aforesaid liberties.
There shall be no order as to the costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge Pb