Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1207 (MP)

Guddi Devi v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2015-11-27

ALOK ARADHE

body2015
ORDER : Alok Aradhe, J. 2. With consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter-alia seeks a direction to the respondents to mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue records in compliance of the order dated 3.10.1975 passed by the Tahsildar. 4. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioners filed an application for mutation of their names in respect of land bearing survey Nos.1931, 1932, 1933/1 and 1947 in the revenue records. The Tahsildar vide order dated 3.10.1975 allowed the application and directed the Patwari to mutate the name of the petitioners in the revenue records in respect of aforesaid land. Thereafter, the Collector initiated suo-motu proceeding on 15.2.1993 and passed an order dated 7.2.2000 by which the order passed by the Tahsildar was set aside. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. The Commissioner by order dated 25.11.2004 by taking into account the judgment and decree passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.164/73 inter-alia held that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and the Collector was not justified in invoking the suo-motu power after an inordinate delay of 15 years. Accordingly, the order passed by the Collector dated 07.2.2000 was quashed and the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 3.10.1975 was up-held. 5. Admittedly, the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as the Tahsildar have attained finality. However, the name of the petitioners have not been mutated in the revenue records. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have visited this Court. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 116 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Patwari is under an obligation to give effect to the order passed by the Commissioner as well as the Tahsildar dated 3.10.1975. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submitted that since the petitioners have failed to establish their title in the Civil Suit and have lost even in the Second Appeal, which was preferred by them, therefore, their names cannot be mutated in the revenue records. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the orders passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, it is evident that the Commissioner has taken note of the judgment and decree passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.164/73 and has held that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and the action of the Collector in invoking the suo-motu powers after an inordinate delay of 18 years, is not justified. Accordingly, the order passed by Collector dated 7.2.2000 has been set aside and the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 3.10.1975 has been upheld. Admittedly, the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as the Tahsildar have attained finality. Under Section 116 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Patwari is bound to give effect to the order passed by the Tahsildar. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, it is directed that the respondents shall mutate the name of the petitioners in respect of the lands in question. 9. Needless to state that the respondents would be at liberty to take action against the petitioners, if so advised, in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. C.C. as per rules.