Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1238 (MP)

Radheshyam v. State of M. P.

2020-12-01

VIVEK RUSIA

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 9.11.2020 passed by the Commissioner; whereby the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 16.1.2020 dismissing the order passed by the Tehsildar has been upheld. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :- The respondents filed the Civil Suit before the Third Civil Judge, Class-I, Mandsaur, for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Vide judgment dated 9.5.2017 the decree has been granted in their favour, which is reproduced below :- ^^1- O;ogkj izdj.k dzekad 227,@96 cnzhyky fo#) Hks:yky vkfn esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 28-4-2004 oknh ds LoRoksa ds eqdkcyss 'kwU; gksdj oknh ij ca/kudkjh ugha gksuk ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA 2- izfroknhx.k dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os oknxzLr losZ uacj 1131 u;k uacj 877 jdck 3-501 gsDVs;j] losZ uacj 1157 u;k uacj 893 jdck 0-836 gSDVs;j fLFkr xzke ,yph rglhy o ftyk eanlkSj ij viuk vkf/kiR; gVkdj oknh dks fjDr vkf/kiR; lkSaiasxs A 3- izfroknhx.k Øekad 1 yxk;r 5 ,oa 7 dk izfrnkok fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA 4- izfroknhx.k viuk ,oa oknh dk okn O;; ogu djsaxs A 5- oknh 7 fnol ds vanj de vnk fd;k x;k U;k;ky; 'kqYd 1500@& :- ¼v{kjh ,d gtkj ik¡p lkS :i;s½ vnk djsxkA oknh }kjk U;k;ky; 'kqYd vnk;xh u fd, tkus ij i`Fkd ls fofo/k fnokuh izdj.k dk;e gksA 6- vf/koDrk 'kqYd izekf.kr gksus ij izek.k i= vuqlkj ;k lwph vuqlkj tks Hkh U;wu gks vkKfIr esa tkosA mijksDrkuqlkj vkKfIr fufeZr gksA** 3. After the aforesaid decree, they approached the Tehsildar by way of an application under section 109 OF M.P.Land Revenue Code,1959 for correction of the entries in the revenue record. The said application was opposed by the present petitioners . Vide order dated 4.6.2009, the Tehsildar has dismissed the application as he has found practical difficulties in implementing the above Judgment and decree. Vide order dated 14.2.2020, the S.D.O. has dismissed the order of Tehsildar and directed for mutation/correction of the name of the respondents i.e. plaintiffs in the Civil Suit. Being aggrieved by the order of S.D.O. The petitioners preferred the Second Appeal before the Commissioner that too has been dismissed vide order dated 9.11.2020. Hence, the present petition. 4. Vide order dated 14.2.2020, the S.D.O. has dismissed the order of Tehsildar and directed for mutation/correction of the name of the respondents i.e. plaintiffs in the Civil Suit. Being aggrieved by the order of S.D.O. The petitioners preferred the Second Appeal before the Commissioner that too has been dismissed vide order dated 9.11.2020. Hence, the present petition. 4. Meanwhile, the petitioners have also filed the civil suit before the IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-II, Mandsaur on 12.8.2018 seeking the declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 9.5.2017 is binding on them because they had purchased the land bearing surveys No.870 and 893 by way of the registered sale deed and they are in possession since last so many years. The Civil Suit is still pending before the civil Court and an application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 of CPC is also pending in it. By way of the present Writ Petition, the petitioners are virtually seeking the stay of the execution of the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2009. So far the revenue authorities are concerned, they have not committed any error of law because as on today the judgment and decree dated 9.5.2017 stand and binding on them and they are bound to comply the same. The petitioners have already filed the civil suit along with an application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 of CPC, therefore, they cannot be permitted to pursue two parallel remedies i.e. one before the civil Court and another before this Court. They are free to pursue the application under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 of CPC, therefore, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable, hence, it is hereby dismissed. However, this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit. The trial Court is free to decide the application filed under Order 39 rule 1 & 2 of CPC.