Mutation proceedings cannot proceed when a civil suit regarding title is pending, as they lack legal sanctity.

ORDER

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.01.2023 [Annexure P/6] passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain whereby the orders dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Sub Division Badnagar, District Ujjain and the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Badnagar, District Ujjain have been set aside and the mutation application filed by her has been dismissed.

2. The facts are not in dispute between the parties. The disputed land belonged originally to Mangilal who had one son Raghunath and three daughters respondents No.2 to 4. Raghunath has expired and respondent No.5 is his widow and respondent No.6 is his daughter. As per the petitioner, after death of Mangilal partition had taken place between Raghunath and his sisters and they were all allotted separate shares in the disputed land. Vide registered sale deed dated 03.08.2018 the petitioner purchased the disputed land from respondents No.5 & 6. Thereafter, she made an application for mutation of her name over the land purchased by her before the Tehsildar which was allowed by him by order dated 28.05.2019. The appeal preferred by respondents No.1 to 4 was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer. However, second appeal preferred by them has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner and both the aforesaid orders have been set aside holding that since Civil Suit is pending between the parties in which there is an injunction order, no order for mutation ought to have been passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is illegal. Though a civil suit was pending at the time of passing of the order by the Tehsildar but there was no injunction order passed therein restraining mutation. The only injunction which was granted by order dated 12.12.1990 was as regards alienation. The mutation proceedings had not been stayed. At the time when the application for mutation was filed by the petitioner he had not received any notice of the civil suit filed by respondents No.2 to 4. His application for mutation could not have been dismissed on the ground of pendency of civil suit pending between the parties and passing of the injunction order therein.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 has submitted that admittedly, at the time of passing of the order by the Tehsildar, civil suit was pending before the civil Court in which a prayer has been specifically made for mcancellation of sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Tehsildar but despite the same he passed the mutation order. Mutation proceedings during pendency of the civil suit cannot and ought not to have been proceeded with. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of this Court in Rajeshwari Bhatt and another vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No.416 of 2016 decided on 22.11.2017 .

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. The sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner by respondents No.5 & 6 on 03.08.2018. Within a month, on 04.09.2018 civil suit was instituted by respondents No.2 to 4 for declaration of their title to the disputed land and for declaration that sale deed executed by respondents No.5 & 6 in favour of petitioner is null and void. Even if at the time when the application under Section 119, 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was preferred by the petitioner before the Tehsildar he had not received any summon from the civil Court of the civil suit, but from the order passed by the Tehsildar it is apparent that the fact as regards institution of the civil suit had been brought to his knowledge. The Tehsildar observed that since there is no injunction order passed in the civil