Santosh Singh Chauhan vs Vikram Singh Tomar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(MP) 411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ.
Santosh Singh Chauhan v. Vikram Singh Tomar and others
Writ Appeal No. 974 of 2022 (Gwalior): against the order dated 2.8.2022 passed in W.P. No. 228/2010; Decided on 19.9.2022

Advocates:
H. D. Mishra for appellant; K. S. Tomar with Santosh Agarwal for respondents; Varun Kaushik, Government Advocate
for respondent/State.

Headnote:
¼1½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku && vuq- 226 && e- ç- Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 && èkkjk 109 rFkk 110 && ifjlhek vfèkfu;e] 1963 && èkkjk 5 && foy d¢ vkèkkj ij ukekarj.k fd;k x;k && çFke vihy ifjlhek ls oftZr gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt && vkns'k dh tkudkjh d¢ fnukad d¢ fo"k; esa fdlh Li"Vhdj.k d¢ fcuk] vk;qä ,oa jktLo eaMy us ljljh r©j ij foyac ekQ fd;k rFkk çdj.k çfrçsf"kr fd;k && fookn xq.kkxq.k dk ugÈ vfirq ;g fd D;k vk;qä ,oa jktLo e.My }kjk foyac ekQ fd;k tkuk rFkk çdj.k çfrçsf"kr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr Fkk && fjV U;k;ky; us fookn dks iw.kZr% fÒUu vk;ke ns fn;k && fu"d"kZ fn;k fd foy ij vkèkkfjr ukekarj.k vuqKs; ugÈ] l{ke vfèkdkfjrk d¢ U;k;ky; ls foy ij vkèkkfjr gd dh Ä¨"k.kk çkIr djus d¢ i'pkr~ gh ukekarj.k d¢ fy, tk;k tk ldrk gS && fjV U;k;ky; dk n`f"Vdks.k lgh ugÈ && vikLr fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 11
¼2½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 109 rFkk 110 && foy ij vkèkkfjr ukekarj.k && foy fookfnr ,oa çR;k[;kr && ukekarj.k dh çkFkZuk eatwj djus ls iwoZ] rglhynkj ;k vU; d¨Ã l{ke çkfèkdkjh i{kdkj¨a d¨ gd d¢ ç'u dk fookn lqy>kus ds fy, l{ke vfèkdkfjrk d¢ U;k;ky; Hkst ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 9
¼3½ foy && foy ij vkèkkfjr ukekarj.k && foy fookfnr ,oa çR;k[;kr && ukekarj.k dh çkFkZuk eatwj djus ls iwoZ] rglhynkj ;k vU; d¨Ã l{ke çkfèkdkjh i{kdkj¨a d¨ gd d¢ ç'u dk fookn lqy>kus ds fy, l{ke vfèkdkfjrk d¢ U;k;ky; Hkst ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 9
¼4½ Òw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 44] 47 rFkk 50 && ifjlhek vfèkfu;e] 1963 && èkkjk 5 && foyac dh ekQh && çFke vihy le;oftZr gksus d¢ dkj.k [kkfjt && vkns'k dh tkudkjh d¢ fnukad d¢ fo"k; esa fdlh Li"Vhdj.k d¢ fcuk] vk;qä ,oa jktLo eaMy us ljljh r©j ij foyac ekQ fd;k rFkk çdj.k çfrçsf"kr fd;k && vk;qä ,oa jktLo e.My }kjk viukbZ xÃ çfØ;k fofèk dh n`f"V ls n¨"kiw.kZ rFkk voSèkrk ls nwf"kr && vk;qä ,oa jktLo e.My d¢ vkns'k mikarfjr && ifjlhek d¢ ç'u dk u, fljs ls fofu'p;u djus d¢ fy, çdj.k mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¨ çfrçsf"krA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 11
¼5½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB d¨ vihy½ vfèkfu;e] 2005 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 2 ¼1½ && Òkjr dk lafoèkku && vuq- 226 && fjV ;kfpdk esa fookn xq.kkxq.k dk ugÈ vfirq ;g fd D;k vk;qä ,oa jktLo e.My }kjk 16 o"kZ dk foyac ekQ fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr Fkk && fjV U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ fd foy ij vkèkkfjr ukekarj.k vuqKs; ugÈ && ;g fu"d"kZ lgh ugÈ && fjV U;k;ky; dk vk{ksfir vkns'k vikLr fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 8] 10 ,oa 11
¼6½ ifjlhek vfèkfu;e] 1963 && èkkjk 5 && foyac dh ekQh && çFke vihy le;oftZr gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt && ,sls varoZrÊ vkns'k d¢ fo#) f}rh; vihy && vkns'k dh tkudkjh d¢ fnukad d¢ fo"k; esa fdlh Li"Vhdj.k d¢ fcuk] vk;qä ,oa jktLo eaMy us ljljh r©j ij foyac ekQ fd;k rFkk fookn dk fofu'p;u xq.kkxq.k ij djus d¢ fy, çdj.k çfrçsf"kr fd;k && vk;qä ,oa jktLo e.My }kjk viukÃ xÃ çfØ;k fofèk dh n`f"V ls n¨"kiw.kZ && vk;qä ,oa jktLo e.My d¢ vkns'k mikarfjr && ifjlhek d¢ ç'u dk u, fljs ls fofu'p;u djus d¢ fy, çdj.k mi[kaM vfèkdkjh d¨ çfrçsf"krA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 11
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- Ss. 109 and 110 -- Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 5 -- mutation made on basis of Will -- first appeal dismissed as barred by limitation -- without any explanation about date of knowledge of order, Commissioner and Board of Revenue cursorily condoned delay and remanded matter -- dispute not on merits but whether Commissioner and Board of Revenue justified in condoning delay and remanding matter -- writ Court gave altogether different dimension to controversy -- concluded that mutation based on Will is not permissible, can approach for mutation only after seeking declaration of title based on Will from Court of competent jurisdiction -- approach of writ Court not correct -- set aside. [Paras 8 & 11
(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- Ss. 109 and 110 -- mutation based on Will -- Will disputed and denied -- before acceding to prayer for mutation, Tahsildar or any other competent authority may relegate parties to settle dispute in Court of competent jurisdiction on question of title. [Para 9
(3) Will -- mutation based on Will -- Will disputed and denied -- before acceding to prayer for mutation, Tahsildar or any other competent authority may relegate parties to settle dispute in Court of competent jurisdiction on question of title. [Para 9
(4) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- Ss. 44, 47 and 50 -- Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 5 -- condonation of delay -- first appeal dismissed as barred by time -- without any explanation about date of knowledge of order, Commissioner and Board of Revenue cursorily condoned delay and remanded matter -- course adopted by Commissioner and Board of Revenue vulnerable in eyes of law and polluted with illegality -- orders of Commissioner and Board of Revenue modified -- matter remanded to SDO to decide question on limitation afresh. [Paras 10 & 11
(5) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M. P.) -- S. 2 (1) -- Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- dispute in writ petition not on merits but whether Commissioner and Board of Revenue were justified in condoning delay of 16 years -- finding of writ Court that mutation based on Will is not permissible -- such finding not correct -- impugned order of writ Court set aside. [Paras 8, 10 & 11
(6) Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 5 -- condonation of delay -- first appeal dismissed as barred by time -- second appeal against such interlocutory order -- without any explanation about date of knowledge of order, delay condoned and matter remanded for deciding dispute on merits -- course adopted by Commissioner and Board of Revenue vulnerable in eyes of law -- orders of Commissioner and Board of Revenue modified -- matter remanded to SDO to decide question of limitation afresh. [Paras 10 & 11

ORDER

Arya, J:- 1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 2.8.2022 passed in W.P. No.228/2010 by the learned Single Judge in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are in narrow compass. The appellant Santosh Singh Chauhan filed an application before the Tahsildar seeking mutation of half of 9 bigha 18 biswa of agricultural land falling in Survey Nos. 187/1, 482/1, 485, 487, 488/1 and 524 of Village Jagnapura, Tahsil Gwalior, District Gwalior. The application for mutation was filed on the basis of registered Will dated 20.12.1988 executed by the Testator Maharaj Singh and duly attested by two witnesses, namely, Vikram Singh and Shiv Singh Tomar. Shiv Singh Tomar is son of the Testator. The Tahsildar passed the order of mutation dated 30.4.1991.

In the year 2006 the legal heirs of one of the attesting witnesses, namely, Vikram Singh filed an appeal under section 44 of MPLR Code after death of another attesting witness Shiv Singh in the year 2004 against the order dated 30.4.1991 before the SDO.

The SDO, vide interlocutory order dated 24.8.2006, ex facie found that appeal was barred by 16 years from the date of order of Superintendent, Land Records. However, upon perusal of the application for condonation of delay, the SDO has mentioned in the order that it had been stated by the applicant that only 21 days' delay was caused from the date of knowledge, however, for such delay also there was no explanation. Learned counsel submits that, as a matter of fact, neither relevant facts were mentioned in the application nor evidence was led to substantiate the date of knowledge of the order dated 30.4.1991, in absence whereof there was no satisfaction recorded by the SDO as regards sufficient cause.

Being aggrieved by the said interlocutory order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 17.2.2009 has set aside the order passed by the SDO. It is observed that the change of name in land records is dated 30.4.1991 while looking at the Namankan Panjiyan kramank 37 dated 30.4.1991 there was no notice or publication to the legal heirs of the Bhumiswami, and therefore, the mutation was not legal and proper. Under such circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case to the Tahsildar to pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law. The Board of Revenue has confirmed the said order by its order dated 7.12.2009.

The appellant preferred writ petition No.228/2010 against the aforesaid order.

The learned Single Judge did not at all deal with impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17.2.2009 and Board of Revenue dated 7.12.2009, much less on merits. Instead, at page 5 of the order, learned Single Judge has concluded that the application filed by the appellant for mutation based on Will dated 20.12.1988 was not maintainable and appellant has been directed to file a civil suit to seek declaration of title based on Will.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, the instant writ appeal is preferred with submission that such recourse adopted by learned Single Judge, in fact, and, in effect, traveled beyond the scope of writ petition and that of the impugned orders. Substitution or super imposition of the impugned order over the order of Revenue Authorities, in fact, is an instance of serious illegality, regard being had to the concept of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Challenge was also made to the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and Board of Revenue on the question; as to whether said Revenue Authorities were justified condoning the delay by an evasive and tangential order and remitting to the file of Tahsildar for deciding the dispute on merits. Further elaborating his submissions, Shri Mishra submits that, in fact and in effect, the writ Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document