ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 01/03/2021 passed by Additional Commissioner, Indore, Division Indore in case No.28/Appeal/2020-21, by which the order dated 11/03/2020 passed by Additional Collector, Burhanpur has been set aside.

The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioners claimed to have purchased the disputed property by registered sale-deed dated 16/04/1992 from Syed Nizamuddin, Syed Abbasali, Syed Hifazat Ali, Syed Mahmood Ali, Sharifa Begum, Saeeda Bee, Ameena Begum.

It appears that the petitioners did not file an application for mutation of their names. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioners filed an application for partition and mutation before the Nazul Officer. The said application was rejected by order dated 29/06/2019 passed by Nazul Officer Burhanpur in case No.235A/6, 2017-18, on the ground that the names of Syyed Hifazat Ali and Syyed Mahmood Ali have been recorded on plot No.179/1 and 179/2 respectively and the said order was never challenged. Furthermore, the names of the other sellers are not recorded in the records and accordingly, the application was rejected with a liberty to the petitioners to seek declaration from the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, District Burhanpur which was registered as Appeal No.13/2019-20 and the said appeal was allowed by order dated 11/03/2020.

The respondents challenged the order of Additional Collector before the Court of Additional Commissioner Indore, Division Indore, which was registered as case No.28/Appeal/2020-21 and by the impugned order, the said appeal has been allowed.

Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the petitioners that since the petitioners had purchased the property in dispute by a registered sale-deed dated 16/04/1992, therefore their names should have been recorded in the records.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

The respondents have challenged the sale-deed by claiming it to be a forged document. The sale-deed was executed on 16/04/1992 and no proceedings were done by the petitioners to get their names mutated. All the sellers were not impleaded as party. The question of title is also involved.

Further mutation entry would not establish the title.

The Nazul Officer after considering the disputed questions of fact had advised the petitioners to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of their title. The Additional Commissioner has also pointed out that the application for mutation was filed after 25 years of execution of sale-

deed and all the sellers were not impleaded as a party. The identification of the land was also in dispute.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Additional Commissioner did not commit any mistake by upholding the order passed by the Nazul Officer.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed . However, liberty granted by the Nazul Officer to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction is hereby maintained and it is directed that in case if the Civil Suit is filed then the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE shubhankar