Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhoora vs Prakash on 17 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV
ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.4596 OF 2021
BETWEEN:-
BHOORA S/O LATE SHRI MAUJILAL DHOBI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILL. BAROD TEHSIL ARON
(MADHYA PRADESH)
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RISHIKESH BOHARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
PRAKASH S/O JAGANNATH RAGHUVANSI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILL. BAROD TEHSIL ARON
(MADHYA PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 05th of December, 2023
Pronounced on : 17 of February, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar-
IV passed the following::
ORDER
2 Challenge is made to the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.963/2020-21/Appeal (Prakash vs. Bhoora) whereby appeal has been allowed setting aside the order dated 31.12.2020 passed by SDO, Aron.
2. Brief facts as depicted by the case history, property was recorded in the name of Mauji Lal @ Mauja- father of the petitioner and after the death of Mauji Lal @ Mauja, Ram Singh, Rajdhar Singh, Uttam Singh, Bhoora sons of Mauji Lal @ Mauja and Rampyari and Dhankunwar Bai daughters of Mauji Lal @ Mauja were recorded as his legal heirs. Respondent Bhoora purchased the property vide registered sale deed dated 26.3.2003 from its recorded tenure holders, while the petitioner is said to be minor. On the basis of registered sale deed, name of purchaser got mutated over the land in question by the authority concerned. Against that order, Bhoora challenged the mutation order before the SDO, Aron in appeal, alleging that at the time of sale deed, he was minor and property cannot be sold on his behalf and sale deed was void. SDO, Aron allowed the appeal setting aside the mutation order. Against which, Prakash - respondent herein filed second appeal before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior which was allowed by Additional Commissioner. Order of Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior is impugned in the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of execution of sale deed dated 26.3.2003, petitioner was minor and his age is recorded as 11 years. Thus, property cannot be sold on his behalf. Mutation order has wrongly been passed on the basis of registered sale deed. Appeal has been filed by him before the SDO.
3SDO rightly allowed the appeal but Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, later on, returned the finding against the order of SDO, Aron which is perverse.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that evidently petitioner was aged about 11 years at the time of execution of sale deed. It may be voidable at the instance of minor but after getting majority, within three years no sale deed has been challenged in Civil Court. Thus, it attained finality and Revenue Court has no right to see the validity of sale deed. It is the Civil Court which can see its validity. Name of the respondent was rightly mutated on the basis of sale deed. Evidently sale deed executed on behalf of the petitioner in favour of the respondent has not been challenged within three years after getting majority in Civil Court. It is sole jurisdiction of Civil Court to cancel void or voidable document. Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (civil) No.13146/2021 has held as under:
"6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been 4 expressed in the series of decisions thereafter. 6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose", i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58;
Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368;
Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v.
Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70."
7. Thus, it is clear from the legal position that if the petitioner wants to take advantage of his minority, when the sale deed was executed, he has to seek declaration/cancellation of the sale deed from the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to see the validity of registered sale deed.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Commissioner rightly observed that suit for cancellation of any transfer 5 on behalf of minor should have been filed within three years after getting majority. Thus, petition is disposed of with the direction that mutation order based on the alleged sale deed shall be subject to the outcome of civil suit, if any, filed by the petitioner.
9. It is also made clear that since the revenue authorities have no right to see the validity of sale deed, therefore, any finding given by the revenue authority with regard to the genuineness of the sale deed shall not prejudice or influence the mind of the Civil Judge.
10. Order of Additional Commissioner is modified to that extent.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV) JUDGE (alok) ALOK KUMAR 2024.02.17 18:21:10 +05'30'