Back
Madhya Pradesh High Court
BHAWANI SINGH,S. L. JAIN
Ambika Prasad Bakshi - Appellant
Versus
Onkar Prasad Saini - Respondent
Decided On : 07/09/2003
Mutation Proceedings - Land Dispute - Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code - [SINGLE JUDGE] - [LAND DISPUTE] - [Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959] - [The judgment discusses the dispute over the ownership and possession of a land parcel and the subsequent mutation proceedings. It highlights the binding nature of the Civil Court's decision on the Revenue Courts, the limitations of Revenue Courts in deciding title disputes, and the finality of the Supreme Court's decision on the status of the respondents as Bhumiswamis. The judgment emphasizes that the Revenue Courts are bound by the Civil Court's judgment and should order mutation according to the Civil Court's decree. It also clarifies that the Revenue Courts cannot enquire into the rights of the respondents after the enforcement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the ownership and possession of a land parcel. The appellants claimed to have purchased the land and accused the defendants of illegal possession. The defendants contested the claim, leading to a series of legal proceedings, including appeals and mutation applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, confirmed by the Supreme Court, established the respondents as Bhumiswamis of the suit land. The Revenue Courts were bound by the Civil Court's decision and should have ordered mutation according to the Civil Court's decree. The court also emphasized that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to enquire into the rights of the respondents after the enforcement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the binding nature of the Civil Court's decision on the Revenue Courts, the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts in deciding title disputes, and the finality of the Supreme Court's decision on the status of the respondents as Bhumiswamis.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment established that the Revenue Courts are bound by the Civil Court's judgment and should order mutation according to the Civil Court's decree. It also clarified that the Revenue Courts cannot enquire into the rights of the respondents after the enforcement of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, affirming the findings of the court regarding the binding nature of the Civil Court's decision on the Revenue Courts and the finality of the Supreme Court's decision on the status of the respondents as Bhumiswamis.
S. L. JAIN, J. :- Being aggrieved by the order dated March 20, 2003, passed by the learned single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 5498/2000, appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
2. The brief resume of the facts required to be stated for disposal of this appeal is as follows :-
A Civil Suit No. 76-A/61 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Sagar by Babu Gokul Prasad as plaintiff against the defendants Laxman and Jairam, alleging that he purchased the suit-land bearing Khasra No. 503, area 5 acres, situate at Moza Sagar Khas, Tahsil and District Sagar, from Babu Shiv Prasad and Babu Kashi Prasad on 30-11-1958. The defendants entered into illegal possession of the said land. They neither paid the damages nor delivered possession of the suit-land in spite of notice by the plaintiff.
3. The defendants pleaded that the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 3-11-1958 is a fictitious and sham transaction which was not meant to be acted upon. It was only a collusive transaction. Gokul Prasad, having lost the civil suit preferred Civil Appeal No. 68-A/64 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 9-9-1965 and thereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed.
4. The plaintiff/appellants Babu Gokul Prasad preferred a Second Appeal No. 1034/85 in the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur. During the pendency of the appeal, Laxman, the defendant/respondent No. 1 died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The High Court set aside the judgment and decree of both the Courts-below. The aggrieved defendants thereafter filed Special Leave Petition No. 5263/72, in the Supreme Court.
5. The Special Leave Petition was allowed and the case was registered as Civil Appeal No. 2272/72, during the pendency of which Babu Gokul Prasad died and in his place Smt. Sardar Bahu was substituted and brought on record as respondent. Smt. Sardar Bahu also died and vide order dated 2-5-1986, her legal representatives were brought on record. The appellant Jairam also died and his legal representatives were also brought on record. Supreme Court heard the Civil Appeal No. 2272/72 and decided it finally by judgment dated 18-12-1990 whereby the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the High Court was set aside and that of both the Courts-below were restored.
6. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, Babu Gokul Prasad and his legal representatives had no right, title or interest over the suit-land and the defendants acquired the status of Bhumiswamis of the suit land and the defendant Hariram and others could not be dispossessed from the suit-land.
7. After the judgment of the Supreme Court, legal representatives of Laxman and Jairam (defendants), who are respondents herein filed an application for mutation of their names over the suit-land as title-holder/Bhumiswamis. Tahsildar, Sagar allowed the application for mutation and Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar confirmed the same in appeal.
8. Against the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar Ambika Prasad, the appellant No. 1 herein filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, who set aside the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar and Tahsildar, Sagar and remanded the case to Tahsildar with a direction to investigate the question of title with regard to the suit-land. The respondents herein then filed a review petition before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar and also filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior. The Additional Commissioner, Sagar, dismissed the review petition on the ground that the revision is pending before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision filed by the respondents, on the ground that the review petition filed by the respondents before the Additional Commissioner is pending therefore, they could not have preferred a revision.
9. This order of Board of Revenue was challenged by the respondents before this Court by filing a Writ
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
