Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1310 (MP)

Gurmeet Singh @ Amardeep Singh v. State of M. P.

2022-11-03

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2022
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs : i. That, the impugned order dated 20.10.2022 passed in Case No.0001/Revision/ 2021-22 passed by the learned Court of District Collector, District Ashoknagar, M.P. Such order may kindly be set aside in the interest of justice. ii. That, the order dated 29.1.2021 passed in Case No.109/Appeal/2019-20 passed by the SubDivisional Officer, (Revenue), Sub-Division Mungawali, District Ashoknagar, M.P. may kindly be restored to its original effect. iii. That, the disciplinary inquiry may be directed against the respondent No.3 i.e. District Collector, District Ashoknagar, M.P. in personal capacity has knowingly and in arbitrary and mala fide manner the impugned order is passed without having the authority of law and without having the jurisdiction and even after the fact has been brought in their knowledge that the revision is not maintainable under that circumstances the passing of the impugned order smells otherwise, the appropriate inquiry may be directed to be conducted in this respect. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents No.6 and 7 had filed an application under section 110 of MP Land Revenue Code for mutation of their names in respect of survey No.224 area 0.554 Hectares. The said application was allowed. However, the order of Tehsildar was set aside by the SDO by order dated 29.1.2021 and the matter was remanded back. However, in a revision filed before the Collector, District Ashoknagar, the order of SDO Mungawali District Ashoknagar has been set aside and the order passed by the Tehsildar has been restored. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a second appeal was maintainable against the order passed by the SDO (Revenue), Mungawali District Ashoknagar, therefore, the Collector, District Ashoknagar had no right to entertain a revision. However, it is fairly conceded that a decree was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction against the siblings of the petitioner for specific performance of contract and in execution of the said decree, the sale deed has been executed in favour of the respondents No.6 and 7. The first appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court has also been dismissed. 3. The first appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court has also been dismissed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Although the petitioner has not filed a copy of the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court as well as the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, however, it is an undisputed fact. By directing for mutation, the Tehsildar Mungawali, District Ashoknagar has merely complied with the sale deed executed in execution of the decree for specific performance of contract. If the petitioner is of the view that any of his right has been infringed because of judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, then he cannot raise such objection before the revenue authority. The only option available with him is to file an appeal. According to the petitioner, the first appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court has also been dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to make a statement as to whether the petitioner had ever filed any first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court or not. 5. Be that as it may. 6. By order dated 23.12.2019 passed by Tehsildar, Mungawali District Ashoknagar, the Tehsildar has in fact carried out the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court. Since the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court is also binding on the petitioner, therefore, the SDO Mungawali, District Ashoknagar was at fault by remanding the matter by holding that the petitioner was a necessary party before the Court of Tehsildar. Since the petitioner has failed to point out his right in the property in dispute, therefore, no case is made out for interfering in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.