ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 30.1.2020 passed by Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad in Case No.017/Appeal/2019-20.

2. It is the case of petitioner that after the death of Gajraj Singh Rajput all the parties inherited equal share in the disputed lands. Since respondents had relinquished their share in the properties, therefore properties were recorded in the name of petitioner. The order of mutation dated 20.2.2011 passed by Tehsildar, Sirali was challenged by petitioner by filing appeal before S.D.O. Khirkiya, District Harda, who by order dated 31.2.2019 set aside the order of mutation and directed for mutation of names of all legal heirs of Gajraj Singh Rajput. The order of S.D.O. was challenged by petitioner before Commissioner Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad, who by order dated 30.1.2020 has dismissed the appeal.

3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since respondents had relinquished their right in the properties in dispute, therefore, Tehsildar had rightly mutated the name of petitioner. It is submitted that relinquishment deed is not required to be registered.

4. Heard learned counsel for parties.

5. It appears that Gajraj Singh Rajput was the owner of the lands in dispute. After his death name of his wife Smt. Nirmala was recorded in revenue records. After the death of Nirmala, it appears that a notarized relinquishment deed was executed by respondents thereby relinquishing their share in the properties and accordingly, name of petitioner was recorded by Tehsildar Sirali, District Harda. Respondents preferred an appeal against order of Tehsildar mainly on the ground that mutation was done without information of respondents. S.D.O. Kirkiya, District Harda by order dated 13.2.2019 allowed the appeal and directed for mutation of names of all the legal representations and Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad has also dismissed the appeal by order dated 30.1.2020 on the ground that mutation of name of petitioner on the basis of relinquishment deed was not proper.

6. So far as contention of counsel for petitioner that relinquishment is not required to be registered is concerned, the same is misconceived.

7. Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama reported in (2018) 15 SCC 130 has held as under:

“10. The only question which needs to be considered in the present case is as to whether document dated 9.9.1994 could have been accepted by the trial court in evidence or the trial court has rightly held the said document inadmissible. The plaintiff claimed the document dated 9.9.1994 as memorandum of family settlement. The plaintiff's case is that earlier partition took place in the lifetime of the father of the parties on 25.10.1992 which as recorded as memorandum of family settlement on 9.9.1994. There are more than one reasons due to which we are of the view that the document dated 9.9.1994 was not mere memorandum of family settlement, rather a family settlement itself. Firstly, on 25.10.1992, the father of the parties was himself owner of both, the residence and shop being self-acquired properties of Devi Dutt Verma. The High Court has rightly held that the said document cannot be said to be a will, so that the father could have made the will in favour of his two sons, the plaintiff and the defendant. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had any share in the property on the day when it is said to have been partitioned by Devi Dutt Verma. Devi Dutt Verma died on 10.9.1993. After his death, the plaintiff, the defendant and their mother as well as sisters become the legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inheriting the property being a Class I heir. The document dated 9.9.1994 divided the entire property between the plaintiff and the defendant which document is also claimed to be signed by their mother as well as the sisters. In any view of the matter, there is relinquishment of the rights of ot