Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 11719
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA, J
Kashmirilal (Dead) Through Lrs Smt. Kamlesh Narang – Appellant
Versus
Gita Rani Ghosh (Since Deceased) Now By Lrs. Smt. Kalpana Sen – Respondent
WP 2063/2016
Arpan Pawar,
Orders passed against a deceased person are nullities; legal representatives must be on record for proceedings against deceased.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Revision against orders of Tahsildar and Board of Revenue - Petition allowed as mutation application filed against deceased was not maintainable - Orders passed against a dead person are nullities. (Paras 6, 12, 14, 16)
(B) Legal representatives - Legal representatives must be on record for proceedings against deceased - Mere awareness of proceedings does not validate orders against deceased. (Paras 12, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petition challenges the order of the Board of Revenue which set aside earlier orders regarding mutation of land sold by a deceased owner. The mutation application was filed against a deceased person, Vazirchand, who died in 1977.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the mutation application was not maintainable as it was filed against a deceased person, leading to the quashing of the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Board of Revenue.
Issues: The main issues were whether the mutation application could be maintained against a deceased person and the validity of orders passed in such circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that orders against a deceased person are nullities and that legal representatives must be on record for proceedings against a deceased.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 6.1.2016 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 1569-PBR/2015, by which, order dated 25.3.2014 passed by S.D.O. Rajdhani Pariyojna Prashasan, T. T. Nagar, Jawahar Chowk, Bhopal in Case No. 2/Appeal/2013-14 and 3/Appeal/2003-04 as well as order dated 7.4.2015 passed by Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Appeal No.91/Appeal/2013-14 and 89/Appeal/2014-15, were set-aside.
2. Looking to the controversy involved in the present case, it is not necessary to discuss the facts of the case in detail.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that Mangal Singh was real owner who sold his lands to various persons including a piece of land which was jointly sold to Vazirchand and Parmanand. Respondents no. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 filed an application for mutation of their names which was registered as Case No. 37/A-3/1991-92. In the said case, Vazirchand was impleaded as respondent no. 11 whereas Vazirchand had already expired on 6.11.1977. Tahsildar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal by order dated 26.9.2001 passed in Case No.37/A-3/1991-92 allowed the application and directed for mutation of names on the basis of first come first serve as Mangal Singh had alienated the property more than what he was having.
4. It is submitted that the order passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal was set-aside by SDO and the order passed by SDO was affirmed by Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal. However, the same has been set-aside by the Board of Revenue by impugned order dated 6.1.2016 passed in Revision No.1569-PBR/2015 and the order passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal has been restored.
5. It is further submitted that on the basis of mutation order dated 26.9.2001, Tahsildar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal also passed an order dated 12.11.2001, thereby subdividing the land in-question.
6. Challenging the order passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal as well as Board of Revenue, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since application for mutation was filed against a dead person, therefore, it is clear that Tahsildar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal as well as Board of Revenue have passed orders against a dead person. Therefore, orders passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal as well as Board of Revenue are nullity.
7. Per contra petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3. By relying upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of P. Jesaya (dead) by LRs. Vs. Sub- Collector and another, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 431 , it is submitted that since legal representative of Vazirchand did not inform the court about death of Vazirchand, therefore, in the light of provisions of Order 22 Rule 10-A of CPC, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the legal representative of late Vazirchand.
8. It is further submitted that widow of late Vazirchand namely Smt. Rampyari Bai had filed an application for partition against her younger brother-in-law (Devar) Parmanand which was also clubbed along with mutation proceedings. Though LRs of Vazirchand were aware of the pendency of the mutation proceeding but if they decided to stay away from those proceedings, then it cannot be said that order passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal was vitiated on account of the fact that it was passed against a dead person.
9. It is further submitted by counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 that Parmanand Narag had also expired and in response to the notice issued to Parmanand, his son Krishna Kumar Narag had appeared before the Tahsildar, therefore, it is clear that legal representative of Parmanand was aware of the pendency of the proceeding.
10. Counsel for the intervener also opposed writ petition.
11. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
12. In the present case, the undisputed facts are that Vazirchand had expired on 6.11.1977 whereas the applicati
