Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 27 (MP)

Purushotam v. Kesharichand Gupta

2021-01-12

G.S.AHLUWALIYA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. Heard through video conferencing 1. This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 23.12.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No. 709/2019-20/Appeal by which the orders passed by the Tahsildar as well as Sub Divisional Officer, Kolaras, District Shivpuri have been set aside and the appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondent is the Bhumiswami of survey No. 133 area two hectares situated in village Dighodi, Shivpuri. An application under Sections 109, 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code was filed against the petitioner on the ground that although the land in question is recorded in the name of the respondent but the respondent had given the said land to the petitioner on lease for cultivation purposes. From thereafter the petitioner is in possession of the same, as a result, the petitioner has obtained the right of Bhumi Swami and, therefore, his name may be recorded in the revenue record. By order dated 5.2.1992 passed in Case No. 11/91-92/A-46 the application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. 3. The respondent being aggrieved by the order dated 5.2.1992 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kolaras, District Shivpuri on 25.10.2012 along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. By order dated 20.3.2013 passed in Case No. 14/12-13/Appeal, the Sub Divisional Officer, Kolaras, District Shivpuri rejected the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act and, accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kolaras, District Shivpuri, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior which has been allowed by the impugned order. 5. The undisputed facts are that the respondent had filed a suit for declaration of title which was registered as Civil Suit No. 16A/2013 and by judgment and decree dated 18.6.2014, the respondent was declared owner of the said land. The petitioner preferred a civil appeal before the Court of Third Additional District Judge, Shivpuri which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 6A/2014 and the said appeal was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 8.7.2015. The petitioner preferred a civil appeal before the Court of Third Additional District Judge, Shivpuri which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 6A/2014 and the said appeal was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 8.7.2015. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner preferred second appeal which was registered as Second Appeal No. 230/2015 and it was dismissed by order dated 24.10.2016. The Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior has allowed the appeal in the light of the judgment passed by the Civil Court in the civil suit filed by the respondent which was affirmed up to the level of High Court. 6. In the teeth of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, the counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how he can claim his right to get his name mutated in the revenue records. However, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that after the dismissal of second appeal, the petitioner has filed miscellaneous appeal which has been registered as M.A. No. 60/2017 before the High Court and the said appeal is pending. However, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no stay in the said miscellaneous appeal and the miscellaneous appeal has not been admitted so far. It is also not known as to how the miscellaneous would be maintainable after the dismissal of the second appeal. 7. Be that as it may. 8. The respondent has already been declared as owner of the land in dispute. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal Below did not commit any mistake by holding that the order passed by the Tahsildar as well as the Sub Divisional Officer, Kolaras, District Shivpuri are bad. 9. As no perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.