Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 572 (MP)

Abid Hussain v. Union of India

2011-05-07

SANJAY YADAV

body2011
JUDGMENT : Petitioner in person. Petitioner by this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India questions the correctness of order dated 28-10-2010; whereby, Principal Director, Defence Estates, Central Command Lucknow Cantonment rejected the application dated 16-01- 2006 filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name in Government Land Register (GLR). Principal Director, Defence Estate, was entertaining the application filed by the petitioner under the direction of this Court given in Contempt Petition No.1078/2009 (Arising out of Writ Petition No. 786/08, decided on 4-2-2008) dated 25-02- 2009. The application for mutation has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish that he is the sole claimant of Sugra Bi through whom he claims the right of mutation. Respondent No. 2 while rejecting the application observed in paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 28-10-2010 :- "6. The matter has accordingly been examined. It has been observed that the claim of Sugra Bi in the subject 2 (two rooms) under dispute in the subject premises as one of the HORs has already been established by the Hon'ble High Court as indicate d above . In all the Court cases regarding claim of these 2 (two) rooms in the subjec t premises Smt. Sugra Bi, wife of Mirza Ghulam Heider, and her 3 (three) sons who are Shri Gaus Alam and Ghulam Hussain and Ghulam Sabir) were the defendants. Out of these 3 (three) sons, Md. Ghulam Hussain submitted an applica tion on 09.7.1987 to DEO, Jabalpur (Annexure P4 to W.P. No. 786/08) for mutation of the subje ct two rooms in his favour only, but no documentary evidence was produced by him to establish that only his name should be mutated in respect of these two rooms. On his demise his son Shri Aabid Hussain submitted an application dt 16.1.2006 (Annexure P-26 to W .P . 786/0 8) for mutation of the said two rooms only in his favour . As per records made available by DEO, Jabalpur Shri Aabid Hussain has not been able to submit any documentary evidence to show that why only his name be mutated in respect of these two rooms though Shri Aabid Hussain has been requested to submit such documents. 786/0 8) for mutation of the said two rooms only in his favour . As per records made available by DEO, Jabalpur Shri Aabid Hussain has not been able to submit any documentary evidence to show that why only his name be mutated in respect of these two rooms though Shri Aabid Hussain has been requested to submit such documents. Objections to the application of Shri Aabid Hussain for mutating these two rooms only in his favour have already been filed by Smt. Sakina Bi widow of late Shri Gaus Alam and Smt. Rehana Bi widow of late Shri Ghulam Sabir, besides the present HORs. All these show that Shri Aabid Hussain cannot be considered as the sole claimant to be recorded as HOR of the subject 2 (two) rooms in the premises; moreover, Shri Aabid Hussain has not been able to prove so far that he is the sole claimant of these 2 (two) rooms." Though it is emphatically submitted by the petitioner that the authority concern has wrongly recorded a finding that the petitioner is not the sole claimant; however, in the light of fact that Smt. Sugra Bi grandmother of the petitioner through whom petitioner claims the right in the property in question, had three sons viz., S/Shri Gaus Alam, Ghulam Hussain and Ghulam Sabir. Ghulam Sabir during his life time could not establish his right over suit property and the petitioner being his son, cannot, unless declared to be an exclusive owner, claim an exclusive right over the property in question. The conclusion drawn at by the Principal Director, Defence Estates, cannot be faulted with. In the result, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.