ORDER 1. This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner Bheekam Singh challenging the order dated 26.5.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in case No. 0930/Appeal/2021-22 affirming the order dated 28.2.2022 passed by SDO (Revenue), Narsinghpur, in case No. 0005/Appeal/2021-22 whereby setting aside the order dtd. 21.8.2017 passed by Naib Tahsildar in case no.67/A-6/2016-17 allowing petitioner’s application for mutation on the basis of judgment and decree passed by civil Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil suit was filed by petitioner-Bheekam Singh for declaration of title and permanent injunction which was decreed on 17.7.2017 by 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Narsinghpur in civil suit No.30-A/14. On that basis, he moved an application for mutation of his name, which after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerning parties, was allowed by Naib Tahsildar, Narsinghpur vide order dated 21.08.2017, but in appeal learned SDO vide its order dated 28.2.2022 set aside the order passed by Naib Tahsildar and the order of SDO has been affirmed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur vide its order dated 26.5.2023. 3. However, learned Counsel fairly concedes that although the civil appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed on 1.10.2021 by first appellate Court but the second appeal No.1892/2021 filed by Omkar Singh and others, has been admitted by High Court on 10.1.2023 and the judgment and decree dated 17.7.2017 and 1.10.2021 are subject matter of the second appeal No.1892/2021 still pending before this Court. He also submits that learned Naib Tahsildar rightly passed the order of mutation on the basis of judgment and decree dated 17.7.2017 but learned SDO and Additional Commissioner have on different grounds, set aside the order of Naib Tahsildar, which are not sustainable in the eyes of law. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for allowing the miscellaneous petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for allowing the miscellaneous petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. Without going into merits and demerits of orders passed by Additional Commissioner and SDO, prima facie it is undisputed fact on record that on the basis of judgment and decree dated 17.7.2017 passed by 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Narsinghpur, the petitioner moved an application for mutation of his name in the revenue record, which was allowed by Naib Tahsildar, however, against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.2017 and 1.10.2021 passed by trial Court and first appellate Court, during pendency of mutation proceedings before the SDO, second appeal was filed before High Court, which has been admitted by this Court on 10.1.2023 and is pending. 6. It is also apparent on record that even on the date of passing of orders by the SDO (Revenue), Narsinghpur and by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, the second appeal was pending before this Court, however, it is not clear from record as to whether factum of pendency of second appeal and its admission was brought to notice of SDO/ Additional Commissioner or not. 7. In respect of the mutation cases based on decree of civil Court, legal position has been settled even by Board of Revenue. Although the decisions of Board of Revenue are not binding on this Court but being highest Court at revenue side, the decisions given by Board of Revenue are binding on all the revenue Courts. Almost similar controversy arose in some cases and was decided by learned Board of Revenue as under : * In the case of Teshwar Singh vs. Sukluram and others 1984 RN 407, learned BOR has held as under:- “3. Shri S.K. Awasthi appearing for the applicant argued that as no stay order has been given by the High Court the order of the Tahsildar in staying the proceedings was wrong. He pointed out that the civil court had passed a final decree in favour of the applicant and therefore the order of the civil Court was binding on the revenue Courts. 4. Shri R.D. Jain appearing for the non-applicants argued that appeal is a continuation of the suit and therefore when the appeal is pending before the High Court mutation cannot be made as it will complicate the matter if the High Court reverses the order of the lower Court. 5. 4. Shri R.D. Jain appearing for the non-applicants argued that appeal is a continuation of the suit and therefore when the appeal is pending before the High Court mutation cannot be made as it will complicate the matter if the High Court reverses the order of the lower Court. 5. Though no stay order has been received from the High Court it is a fact that the case is still pending before the High Court, if the mutation is made in the name of the applicant on the basis of the decree of the Additional District Judge and if this decision is reversed by the High Court later on the matters will be complicated. It seems therefore to be the correct step taken by the Tahsildar to stay the proceedings of mutation pending decision of the High Court. Thus I find the order of the Commissioner, Bastar Division proper and legal. The revision petition is dismissed.” * In the case of Hukum Singh v. Shanker Singh and another 1976 RN 116, learned BOR has held as under:- “3. Applicant's contention is that a decree has already been granted in his favour by the Civil Court and this decree should be complied with. The injunction granted by the Civil Court relates to possession only and does not affect mutation. There is no case, therefore, for setting aside the mutation granted in his favour. The contention on behalf of nonapplicant was that the Civil Court decree has been challenged on the ground of fraud and the Civil Court has itself granted an injunction. Under the circumstances possession of non-applicant cannot be disturbed. There is thus no justification for mutation. I have gone through the record and I find that Kadam Singh had executed the sale deed as the guardian of Shankar Singh. Since there is a dispute regarding the validity of this sale on behalf of a minor and this matter is still to be finally decided by the Civil Court, the proper course in the case would be to await the decision of the Civil Court and take action regarding mutation in the light of the final decree. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order of the learned Additional Commissioner. It is to be added though that the learned Additional Commissioner has not cared to examine the record carefully. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order of the learned Additional Commissioner. It is to be added though that the learned Additional Commissioner has not cared to examine the record carefully. In fact he has considered that the appeal before him was against the order of the Collector whereas it was preferred against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. The Collector's order in revision was only against an interim order of stay granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer.” * In the case of Labhsingh and others vs. Devkinandan and another 1984 RN 31, learned BOR has held as under:- “6. If there is a wrong entry it can be got corrected. The proceedings u/s 110 are independent of section 115 of the Code. The Tahsildar has to decide a case u/s 110 on the basis of title and not any other basis. If a suit as regards title is pending before the civil Court the application before the Tahsildar will become infructuous. It is senseless to pursue two parallel proceedings. The wastage of money and time should be avoided. 7. The Tahsildar has to decide a case u/s 110 on the basis of title and not any other basis. If a suit as regards title is pending before the civil Court the application before the Tahsildar will become infructuous. It is senseless to pursue two parallel proceedings. The wastage of money and time should be avoided. 7. There is concurrent jurisdiction, nevertheless the jurisdiction of a civil Court is superior and whatever is decided by that Court will be the final decision unless varied or reversed in appeal and the Tahsildar is bound to make a mutation on the basis of a valid decree.” * In the case of Mitthulal Dubey and others vs. Sudhir Kumar 1996 RN 57, learned BOR has held as under:- ^^5- mijksDr rdksZa dks lquus ds i'pkr~ rFkk vfHkys[k dk voyksdu djus ij esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pk gw¡ fd vij vk;qDr dk vkns'k lkjka'k dafMdk & 7 rd rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gqvk gS vkSj mUgksaus bl dafMdk esa ;g lgh ekuk Fkk fd fopkj.kh; iz'u ;g gS fd ;'kksnkckbZ dh Hkwfe ij ftldks oS/kkfud :i ls LoRo izkIr gksrs gSa] ysfdu mlds i'pkr~ mUgksaus vkns'k fjekaM djus esa =qfV dh gS D;ksafd jktLo U;k;ky;ksa dks dsoy nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij ukekarj.k djuk pkfg, vkSj LoRo ds iz'u ij fujkdj.k djus dk vf/kdkj mudks ugha gSA ;g dsoy O;ogkj U;k;ky; gh dj ldrk gSA vxj fdlh dks oS/kkfud LoRo fl) djuk gS rks os O;ogkj U;k;ky; dk lgkjk ys ldrs gSaA lkekU;r% jktLo U;k;ky;ksa esa ukekarj.k ;k rks mRrjkf/kdkj ds vk/kkj ij ;k iath;r foØ;i= ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkrk gS vxj blesa Hkh dksbZ >xM+k gS rks rglhynkj dks Hkh blds vuqlkj gh O;ogkj U;k;ky; esa tkus dk volj ysuk gksrk gS ;fn dksbZ O;ogkj fookn gS rks ghA bl izdj.k esa tc nLrkost miyCèk Fks tSlk fd xksnukek vkSj bPNki= vkSj NksVsHkkbZ dh Hkwfe Fkh rks mudks u ekuus esa jktLo U;k;ky;ksa ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa ugha gSA dsoy ukekardj.k ds eqn~ns ij gh QSlyk djuk pkfg, Fkk vkSj izR;korZu dk vkns'k =qfViw.kZ FkkA bl gn rd vij vk;qDr dk vkns'k =qfViw.kZ dgk tk ldrk gS D;ksafd rglhynkj bldk ikyu djus esa l{ke ugha gSA mi;qä ;gh gksrk fd miyC/k nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij vèkhuLFk U;k;ky; viuk fu.kZ; nsrsA i{kdkj O;ogkj U;k;ky; esa tkus ds fy, vHkh Hkh l{ke gSA bl izdj.k es vuko';d :i ls foyac fd;k x;k gS D;ksafd blesa ;'kksnkckbZ ds ejus ds mijkar Hkwfe mlds mRrjkf/kdkjh dks nsus ds fy, gh dk;Zokgh djuk FkhA ;'kksnkckbZ d¢ ejus ds igys D;k dk;Zokgh gqbZ] ;g fopkj.kh; iz'u ugha Fkk vkSj LoRo dks çekf.kr djus dk iz;kl jktLo U;k;ky;ksa esa fd;k x;k gS] tks muds le{k {ks=kfèkdkj jfgr Fkk blfy, fuxjkuh vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj dh tkrh gS vkSj ;g izdj.k rglhy U;k;ky; dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gS fd og izdj.k esa miyC/k nLrkost ds lk{; dks ns[kdj ukekarj.k ds iz'u dks fu.khZr djsaA mudk dsoy fjekaM djus dk vkns'k dks fujLr fd;k tkr gSA vxj nksuksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh i{kdkj LoRo gsrq O;ogkj U;k;ky; esa tkuk pkgrs gSa] rks os tk ldrs gSa vkSj jktLo U;k;ky; esa dsoy ukekarj.k dh gh dk;Zokgh gks ldrh gSA** * In the case of Umadevi vs. Ramadevi and others 1997 RN 406, learned BOR has held as under:- ^^6- nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa ij fopkj fd;k x;kA lafgrk dh /kkjk 110 ¼4½ esa dgk x;k gS fd rglhynkj :fp j[kus okys O;fDr dks lquokbZ dk volj nsus d¢ i'pkr~ ,oa ,slh vU; tkap] tks fd og vko';d le>sa] djus ds i'pkr~ [kljk rFkk nwljs vU; vfHkys[kksa esa izfof"V djsxkA ;g Li"V gS fd rglhynkj }kjk laf{kIr tkap ds i'pkr~ bl izdkj dh izfof"V dh tk;xhA tSlk fd 1975 jk-fu- 21 esa dgk x;k gS] ukekUrj.k ls dksbZ LoRo izkfIr ds ckjs esa vafre fu.kZ; l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd tgka ij isphnk iz'u gksa ogka ij jktLo vf/kdkjh }kjk dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gksxk] tSlkfd 1995 jk- fu- 98 ¼Hkkuqizrki flag fo- xqykcflag½ esa dgk x;k gSA 1984 jkfu- 31 esa Hkh jktLo e.My }kjk Bgjk;k x;k gS fd ;|fi fopkjkf/kdkj leorhZ gS fQj Hkh flfoy U;k;ky; dk fopkjkf/kdkj Js"B gS ,oa flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk tks Hkh fu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gS og tc rd fd vihy esa ifjofrZr gks ;k myVk ugha tkrk] vafre fu.kZ; gksxk vkSj jktLo U;k;ky; ij og ca/kudkjh gSA , vkb vkj 1992 ¼e-iz-½ 224 esaa dgk x;k gS fd tc izdj.k izkscsV] U;k;ky; ds le{k gks rks flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk bl ij b'kq Ýse djuk vkSj ml ij fu.kZ; ysuk mfpr ugha gksxkA tSlk fd 1984 jk- fu- 31 esa dgk x;k gS fd vxj LoRo ds ckjs esa O;ogkj U;k;ky; ds le{k dksbZ okn yafcr gS rks bl ij rglhynkj dk fu.kZ; O;FkZ gksxk vkSj blesa dsoy le; ,oa iSls dh cjcknh gksxhA ;g lgh gS fd 1990 jk- fu- 28 ¼fxj/kkjhyky fo- ekudyky½ esa yxHkx bUgha ds leku rF;ksa ij ls ;g Bgjk;k x;k gS fd ukekarj.k izfØ;k dks jksdus dh vko';drk ugha gS] ijarq ekuuh; lnL; us bl ckr ij /;ku ugha fn;k fd flfoy U;k;ky; esa okn yafcr gksrs gq;s jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk dk;Zokgh ugha dh tkuh pkfg;s( bl ij 1984 jk- fu- 31 miyC/k Fkk vkSj ;fn og blls lger ugha Fks rks izdj.k dks ;qxy cSap ds le{k Hkstk tkuk pkfg;s FkkA** * In the case of Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. Nathuram and another 1998 RN 335, learned BOR has held as under:- ^^5- nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa ij fopkj fd;k x;k ,oa izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ;g Li"V gS fd jktLo e.My }kjk iwoZ esa fu.kZ; fn;k x;k Fkk fd olh;rukek dh dsoy QksVksLVsV izfr ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ ukekarj.k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA js.kqdkckbZ dks Hkwfe ij tks LoRo izkIr gksrs gSa og dsoy ukekarj.k ds vk/kkj ij gd izkIr gS vkSj blfy, bl izdj.k esa O;ogkj U;k;ky; ds QSlyk gksus rd mls Hkwfe cspus dk gd ugha gks ldrkA vr,o ukFkwjke dks dksbZ gd izkIr ugha gksxkA blfy, ;g mfpr jgsxk fd Hkwfe O;ogkj U;k;ky; ds vafre vkns’k gksus rd js.kqdkckbZ ds uke gh jgs vkSj QSlyk gks tkus ds i’pkr~ gh mlds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk,A vr,o vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 29-8-92 dks izdj.k Øekad 49@90&91 esa tks vkns'k fn;k x;k Fkk og lgh gS vkSj mls ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA vij vk;qDr dk vkns'k vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA** * In the case of Rajaram v. Sitaram and another 2006 RN 375, learned BOR has held as under:- ^^5- mHk; i{k }kjk izLrqr rdksZa ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vfHkys[k dks ns[kus ls Li"V gS fd iz'uk/khu Hkwfe vukosnd Øekad 1 lhrkjke }kjk iathd`r foØ; i= ds ek/;e ls Ø; dh xbZ gS] vr% iathd`r foØ; i= ds ek/;e ls iz'uk/khu Hkwfe Ø; fd, tkus ds dkj.k rglhy U;k;ky; }kjk vukosnd Øekad ,d ds i{k esa ukekarj.k vkns'k ikfjr djus esa dksbZ voS/kkfudrk ugÈ dh xbZ gSA vij vk;qDr dk ;g fu"d"kZ fof/klaxr gS fd vkosnd }kjk LoRo ,oa vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk gsrq O;ogkj okn izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gS] vkSj O;ogkj okn dk fu.kZ; jktLo U;k;ky;ksa ij ca/kudkjh gksxk] ,slh fLFkfr esa vkosnd dks lquokbZ dk volj fn, tkus gsrq izdj.k izR;kofrZr fd, tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA bl izdkj vij vk;qDr }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fof/klaxr ,oa vkSfpR;iw.kZ gSA** * In the case of Shakurbeg v. Smt. Akhtari Begam 2012 RN 316 , learned BOR has held as under:- ^^4- cgl ds le; vkosnd ds vfHkHkk"kd us mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr nks fu.kZ;ksa dh vksj bl U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk 1987 lhlh-,y-ts- ¼uksV ua- 65 iz-Ø- 1183@95 jkedyh fo:) jktLo e.My rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 1944@ 96 cyjke fo:) oSnsgh'kj.k esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 11-3-1999½ }kjk ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd Hkw&jktLo lafgrk ds vUrxZr fd;k x;k ukekUrj.k O;ogkj U;k;ky; ds v/khu gksxk] bl dkj.k ukekarj.k dh dk;Zokgh LFkfxr j[kh tkuh pkfg,A bu nksuksa fu.kZ;¨a ls ;g Li"V gS fd D;ksafd O;ogkj U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ls ukekarj.k ds izdj.k ij izHkko iM+rk gS] vkSj varr% O;ogkj U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds v/khu gh ukekarj.k gksrk gS] ukekarj.k dh dk;Zokgh O;ogkj U;k;ky; ds vfUre fu.kZ; rd LFkfxr j[kh tkuh pkfg,A blds foijhr vukosfndk ds vfHkHkkod dksbZ Bksl rdZ izLrqr ugha dj ldsA mPp U;k;ky; ds Li"V funsZ'k gksaxs ij bl ekeys esa vfrfjDr dk;Zokgh dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh tc rd nhokuh U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; ugha gks tkrk] ukekarj.k dh dk;Zokgh jktLo U;k;ky; esa pyus ;ksX; ugha gksxhA vr% fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk ukekarj.k dh dk;Zokgh jktLo U;k;ky; esa LFkfxr dh tkrh gSA** 8. A division Bench of this Court in the case of Durg Singh v. Shrimati Jebobai and another 1978 (1) MPWN 222 , has also held as under:- “The main grievance which was advanced before the Court is that when there is a valid decree by the civil Court, the revenue authorities have no right to stay the mutation proceedings. The learned counsel referred to the Court section 111 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. This section says that the civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute to which the State Government is not a party relating to any right which is recorded in the record of rights. Basing his submission on this section, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is a decree in his favour then as of right his name should have been mutated. This Court thinks that he is right in his submission, and, therefore, the order of the Board of Revenue cannot stand and so this Court sets aside that order. But the question now is that what exactly should be done in such a matter when there are two decrees, one in favour of each party and a third is pending to decide that the decree obtained in second suit is not binding because of fraud. This Court feels, under such circumstances, it will be just and proper to stay the proceedings regarding the mutation till the final decision of the pending civil suit. Therefore, this Court allows this petition, quash the order passed by the Board of Revenue and instead under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court passes the order as mentioned above. Petition allowed.” 9. In another judgment, a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Begum Suraiya Rashid and others 2005 RN 246, has held as under:- “25. Division Bench of this Court has clearly observed that title is not usually decided by revenue Courts, that it is the jurisdiction of civil Courts. It is only in the case of clear title, revenue authority can make interference. ***** 32. Division Bench of this Court has clearly observed that title is not usually decided by revenue Courts, that it is the jurisdiction of civil Courts. It is only in the case of clear title, revenue authority can make interference. ***** 32. In the case of dispute under sub-section (1) of section 57 whether land has vested in the State or not and whether it belongs to State Government, such a dispute has to be decided by SDO and any person aggrieved by any order passed by SDO can file civil suit to contest the validity of the order after decision is rendered by the SDO within one year. Thus, the submission which has been raised by Shri Shrivastava that SDO cannot look into the matter as directed by the Commissioner cannot be accepted. 33. Civil suit was pending which is the appropriate remedy in such disputed questions of facts and law. In mutation, which is the fiscal proceedings, serious question as to title cannot be decided, civil suit was already preferred, was pending since 1984, mutation application was filed in the year 1989, ejectment order treating as trespassers stood against the respondents, as such, in my opinion recourse could not have been taken to the proceedings under section 110 of MPLRC, recourse was not only impermissible but improper one also, matter should have been left for decision of the civil Court/SDO in the appropriate proceedings where question of title can be effectively examined.” 10. In view of the aforesaid clear and settled legal position, in my considered opinion when the matter at civil side has not been finalized so far and is pending in second appeal, therefore, the Tahsildar or any other revenue authority had no jurisdiction to entertain any application for mutation on the basis of judgment and decree passed by Court of first instance i.e. by 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Narsinghpur. 11. Consequently, at the present stage the application filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be entertainable and in the considered opinion of this Court learned Additional Commissioner and SDO have not committed any illegality in setting aside the order dtd.21.8.2017 passed by Naib Tahsildar. 12. 11. Consequently, at the present stage the application filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be entertainable and in the considered opinion of this Court learned Additional Commissioner and SDO have not committed any illegality in setting aside the order dtd.21.8.2017 passed by Naib Tahsildar. 12. However, it is hereby observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh application for mutation of his name after decision of second appeal No.1892/2021 and if such an application is filed by the petitioner Bheekam Singh, it shall be decided by concerning revenue authority on its own merits without being influenced by the orders dtd. 26.5.2023 and 28.2.2022 passed by Addl. Commissioner and S.D.O. and these orders shall not come in the way of the petitioner. 13. With the aforesaid observation, this miscellaneous petition is disposed off. 14. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand disposed off.