Back
2012 Supreme(Chh) 308
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, GWALIOR BENCH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Dinesh Kumar and others
Vs.
Smt. Sarveshari and others
Writ Petition No. 6609 of 2012
Decided On : 19-12-2012
For the Parties:Mr. R.K. Soni, Advocate, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Prakash Bararu, Advocate, for the Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of registration for documents related to partition and the effect of unregistered documents on creating rights in favor of the parties involved.
Headnote:
MPLRC - Mutation of Land - Section 110, Section 119 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) and whether the petitioners can be treated as 'person interested' under this section. The court also examined the requirement of registration for documents related to partition and the effect of unregistered documents on creating rights in favor of the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the mutation of land in revenue records in favor of the respondents. They claimed that the land was required to be mutated in their favor due to a family partition deed and pending civil suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unregistered document related to partition did not provide any right in favor of the petitioners. It held that the petitioners failed to show that they had acquired any right or title on the land in question. The court also noted that the petitioners had already filed a civil suit for the relief in question.
Issues: The core issue was whether the petitioners could be treated as 'person interested' under Section 110 of the MPLRC and the effect of unregistered documents related to partition on creating rights in favor of the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the unregistered document related to partition did not provide any right in favor of the petitioners. It also emphasized that the petitioners had already filed a civil suit for the relief in question, indicating that the matter was already subject to challenge before the competent trial court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as lacking substance.
1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the order of the Revenue Board dated 1-5-2012.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:-
The petitioners claim is that the father of petitioners, namely, Prahlad and his brothers Raghunath and Keshav were owners of the land bearing survey Nos. 386 and 387, situated in Village Kutdhan, Patwari Halka No. 24, Tehsil Sabalgarh, District Morena. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 got their names mutated in revenue record on the said survey numbers. When the petitioners came to know about the said mutation, they preferred an appeal before Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), which was registered as Appeal No. 45/ 2008-09. The Appellate Court initially granted temporary injunction but ultimately dismissed the appeal by order dated 4-12-2009 on merits. Feeling aggrieved with the order of SDO aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, which was registered as Appeal No. 28/2009-10. By order dated 4-2-2010, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the present petitioners, set aside the order of SDO and remitted the matter back to the Tehsildar to pass orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties. The respondents herein filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was decided by impugned order dated 1-5-2012.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the father of the petitioners, namely, Prahlad and Keshav and Raghunath were brothers. They were co-owners of the property. Keshav died in the year 2000 and as per family partition deed, the land was required to be mutated in favour of the petitioners. A civil suit is also pending in the Court of Civil Judge Class 2, Sabalgarh and, therefore, Tehsildar has committed an error in not noticing the petitioners.
4. Shri R.K. Soni, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Section 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), it was obligatory for the Tehsildar to notice all persons appearing to him to be interested and in absence thereof the mutation proceedings are vitiated. He submits that the Appellate Authority has rightly set aside the order of SDO and Board of Revenue has committed an error in interfering in the matter.
5. Learned Counsel for the parties, during the course of arguments, fairly admitted that core issue to be decided in this matter is whether under Section 110 of the MPLRC, the petitioners can be treated to be "person interested" and if petitioners are not noticed, what is the effect of the same. Shri R.K. Soni, in support of his contention, heavily relied on the document at Page 34 (A) and submits that this document dated 3-6-1984 shows that there was an oral partition which took place earlier and as per this, the petitioners have acquired right on the land in question. He relied on Guljarilal Jain Vs. Ravikant Shirke 2010(3) JLJ 16 and Suresh Kumar Agarwal and others Vs. State of M.P. and others 2011(3) MPLJ 91. Learned Counsel for the petitioners criticised the order of Board of Revenue, whereby the petitioners were not treated to be persons interested. He submits that the aforesaid document at Page 34 (A) makes it crystal clear that there was an earlier oral partition and, therefore, said document was not required to be registered. Aforesaid judgments were cited in support of this contention. In addition to aforesaid, Shri R.K. Soni heavily relied on the finding of the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division in Para 4 of his order wherein it is mentioned that the defendants have taken a stand that the partition between Keshav Prasad and Prahlad took place on 3-6-1984. Keshav Prasad died on 28-3-2000 and Prahlad died on 20-4-2007. By placing heavy reliance on the aforesaid stand, it is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the document at Page 34 (A) is admitted by the present respondents and, therefore, as per the said document petitioners have acquired a r
