The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory procedures in mutation applications, ruling that failure to comply invalidates the actions taken, regardless of claims for protection under the Judges Protection Act.

ORDER :

(Maninder S. Bhatti, J.)

This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.373/2024 dated 12.09.2024 registered at Police Station Vijaynagar District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 229, 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61, 198 BNS.

2. This is an application by the present applicant who is working as Tahsildar. It is contended by the counsel that an application for mutation came up before him which has been brought on record along with IA No.26052/2024 and upon receipt of the said application, the present applicant issued public notification which is at page no.9 dated 30.06.2023. The order-sheets were reduced in writing and after receiving the patwari prativedan, the order of mutation in favour of the applicant who has applied for mutation was passed. It is contended by the counsel that the application was moved by the applicant in the prescribed format and thus, there was illegality in the same. It is contended by the counsel that the order passed by the present applicant of mutation dated 08.08.2023 was assailed by one Shivcharan Pandey by filing an appeal under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before Sub Divisional Officer, Adhartal Jabalpur. The SDO, Adhartal, Jablapur passed an order dated 09.09.2024 and while passing the said order, the SDO, set aside the order passed by the present applicant dated 08.08.2023 and issued direction for mutation of Shiv Charan Panday. While passing the said order, the SDO observed that on the basis of the forged documents and while conducting ex-parte proceedings, the order has been passed, and therefore, the proposal was made to the Collector to take appropriate action against all accused persons.

3. It is contended by the counsel that pursuant to an order of SDO, the offence in question has been registered against the present applicant. It contended by the counsel that firstly there is no violation of any statutory provision as is being sought to be alleged by the prosecution. It is contended by the counsel that the present applicant passed the order in the capacity of the Tahsildar exercising quasi judicial powers, and therefore, was entitled for the Judges Protection Act. It is contended by the counsel that there is a circular, which has been brought on record along with the application which is at page no.22, which stipulates that all the Revenue Officers, who exercise quasi judicial powers are protected under the Judges Protection Act and no action can be taken as regards in action which has been performed by them in performing of their official duties.

4. It is further contended by the counsel that the identical eventualities have been taken note of by this Court in number of decisions and in the case of Mahesh Kumar Badole vs. The State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.41607/2021), in identical circumstances, this Court quashed the proceedings which were instituted against the Revenue Officer.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Direndra Singh vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.58759/2022), in the case of Mrs. Manorama Koshti Malkapurkar Wd/o Shri Arun Rao Malkapurakar vs. State of M.P. and Ors. (W.P. No.1901/2017) and in the case of Om Prakash vs. Surjan Singh (2004 1 MPJR 244).

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and submitted that in the present case, the present applicant while misusing his post passed an order dated 08.08.2023, in gross violation of the statutory provisions contained in M.P. Land Revenue Code and thereby without extending an opportunity of hearing to a person who was aged about 95 years and whose name was recorded previously in the revenue record, an order in favour of the other persons was passed. It is thus, contended by the counsel that the Sub Divisional Officer while taking note of this illegality passed the order and as a result of which, the offence in qu