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. 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 t