Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sirnam vs Smt Geeta Devi on 20 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV
ON THE 20 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 2597 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SIRNAM, AGED- 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KRASHI
2. ASHOK SINGH, AGED- 54 YEARS,
BOTH SONS OF - RAMJEET SINGH, OCCUPATION-
AGRICULTURE,
3. SMT. KETIKA BAI W/O SHRI RAMJEET SINGH,
AGED- 80 YEARS, OCCUPATION- HOUSEWIFE,
ALL RESIDENTS OF- GRAM MUNGAWALI,
TEHSIL- MEHGAON, DISTRICT- BHIND MADHYA
PRADESH.
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI V. S. CHAUHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT GEETADEVI W/O SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH,
RESIDENTS OF- GRAM KETHODA TEHSIL MEHGAON
DISTRICT BHIND MADHYA PRADESH.
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI VINAY KUMAR - ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners are challenging the order dated 14/12/2021 passed by Tehsildar, Mehgaon, District Bhind in Case No.1397/A-6/2020-21, order dated 28/3/2022 passed by Additional Collector, District Bhind in Case No.0054/2021-22/Revision and order dated 19/9/2022 passed by Additional Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 2/21/2024 10:45:52 AM 2 Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena in Case No.0001/Revision/2022-23.
2. It appears that property was recorded in the name of one Ramjeet Singh, who died leaving behind his wife, two sons and one daughter. At the first instance, mutation was done in favour of sons only. Later on, Smt. Geetadevi- respondent filed an application under Section 32 of MPLRC for correction of the mutation order alleging that she is daughter of Ramjeet Singh and her name should also be recorded in place of her father. Tehsildar entertained the application by order dated 14/12/2021 fixing a date for evidence. Challenging the order of Tehsildar dated 14/12/2021 petitioners filed a revision before Additional Collector, which has been dismissed. There-against, petitioners filed second revision before the Commissioner, which came to be heard and decided by Additional Commissioner holding that after amendment in the MPLRC second revision is not maintainable. All the orders are impugned in the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Admittedly, property in dispute was recorded in the name of one Ramjeet Singh, who happened to be father of petitioners no.1, 2 & respondent and husband of petitioner no.3. After the death of their father-Ramjeet Singh, petitioners no.1 and 2 got their names recorded in place of their father as legal heirs. Admittedly, petitioner no.3 was his wife and respondent is his daughter. Why their names have not been recorded as legal heirs, is not explained in the first order of mutation. Learned Tehsildar found illegality in the said order and entertained application under Section 32 of MPLRC and fixed for hearing of parties. By this order no prejudice has been caused to the parties and mutation between the legal heirs is yet to be decided. Learned counsel for the petitioners Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 2/21/2024 10:45:52 AM 3 could not show any illegality or irregularity, legal or otherwise, in the impugned order of Tehsildar.
5. In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of Tehsildar in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed accordingly. However, Tehsildar concerned is directed to decide the matter of mutation within six months, after providing full opportunity of hearing to both parties, from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV) JUDGE Arun* Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 2/21/2024 10:45:52 AM