Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd Hamid Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21984
1 WP-42612-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 24 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 42612 of 2025
MOHD HAMID KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arihant Tiwari - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Saiyed Shahrukh Haider Jafri - respondent No.4 in person.
ORDER
Present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that their father late Salim Khan had purchased a portion of land bearing Plot No.22/1, Block No.1, North Civil Line, New Napier Town, Jabalpur, admeasuring 850 sq. ft. through a registered sale deed dated 13.12.1984 from the original title holders who are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.3-A/2014. Late Salim Khan passed away unmarried on 06.06.2007 leaving behind the petitioners as his successors. They were granted a Succession Certificate on 09.03.2010 by the competent Civil Court thereby affirming their status as the legal owners and successors of the property in question. On the basis of the succession certificate, the petitioners submitted an application for mutation of their names in the revenue records before the Tehsildar Ranjhi. During the mutation proceeding, the report was submitted by the Revenue Inspector wherein Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:16:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21984 2 WP-42612-2025 a reference was made to the order date 23-04-2015 passed by this Court in F.A.324 of 2015 which had directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the disputed land. On the basis of the said report, the Tehsildar rejected the mutation application filed by the petitioners vide order dated 08-02-2023. An appeal was preferred before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranjhi challenging the said rejection order. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 28-03-2024. A second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur being appeal No.298/Appeal/2024-25. The Commissioner has failed to appreciate the aspect that the petitioners' claim is based upon the prior registered transaction of 1984 and the status quo order was passed in the year 2015 that does not bind the authorities in any manner. The petitioners have sought mutation in view of the succession certificate granted to them by the competent civil court.
The Commissioner has failed to consider the aspect that the revenue entry does not confer any title and the claim of the petitioners is based upon the registered sale- deed transaction of the year 1984. Therefore, the order rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the status quo order is in place in the pending first appeal is per se illegal. The Commissioner without appreciating the facts has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Therefore, this petition.
3. It is argued that the property in question was purchased through the registered sale-deed dated 13-12-1984 by late Salim Khan who passed away on 06-06-2007 and the petitioners are the successors having obtained the succession certificate on 09-03-2010 from the competent civil court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The record indicates that the petitioners have filed an application for mutation of their names in the revenue records on the strength of the sale deed which was executed in the year 1984 in favour of late Salim Khan. The petitioners Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:16:44 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21984 3 WP-42612-2025 claim to be successors as they have obtained a succession certificate from the competent civil court. The authorities have rejected the application for mutation on the ground that the property in question is pending adjudication in F.A.No.324 of 2015 and there is a status quo order granted in the first appeal. Until and unless the first appeal is finally decided, the revenue authorities could not consider the application of mutation. There is no document placed on record by the petitioners to show that name of Salim Khan was entered into the revenue records during his lifetime on the strength of the sale deed which was executed in his favour in the year 1984. It is for the first time the application for mutation of the petitioners' names was filed on the strength of the succession certificate which was obtained in the year 2010.
6. It is a settled principle of law that the revenue authorities are barred from taking any action to adjudicate any application during the pendency of the cases before the civil courts in case the land is involved. In the present case, it is not disputed that the land which is the subject matter of the first appeal which is pending adjudication before this Court is the same land on which the mutation is sought for. The petitioner has failed to explain that why during the lifetime of late Salim Khan, he had not applied for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The application for mutation is filed by the petitioners for the first time after lapse of almost 40 years from the date of execution of the said sale deed. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Pratap Singh Vs. Prahalad Singh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 6027 has considered the aspect of pendency of a Second Appeal before this Court and held that as the Second Appeal is pending before this Court for adjudication, the revenue authorities are having no right to entertain the applications for mutation during the pendency of the case before the competent civil courts or in appeals.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:16:44NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:21984 4 WP-42612-2025
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Rejak Laskar vs Mafizur Rahman reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3845 has observed as under :
"27. ... if there is any dispute regarding the title or possession raised by any of the co-sharers, the Deputy Commissioner has to stay his hands on such process of partition and leave the matter to be decided by a competent Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter."
8. If the aforesaid principle is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, no relief can be extended to the petitioners. The order passed revenue authorities is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the present petition.
9. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE sj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 20-03-2026 18:16:44