ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an application under Section 164 of M.P. Land Revenue Code was filed by the respondents before the Nayab Tahsildar, Bina District Sagar and the respondent prayed that as regards Khasra Nos. 2/1, 22/1, 4/1/1, 53/1 area 7.48 hectare situated at Village Mandibamora Tehsil Bina District Sagar, the name of Sujanmal be struck of from the revenue record and the name of his legal representatives be recorded.

The Nayab Tahsildar, in view of the pendency of a suit between the parties, kept the proceedings in abeyance by an order dated 20.01.2020. The said order dated 20.01.2020 was assailed by the respondent by filing an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure-P/11) dismissed the appeal. Against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 12.02.2021, the respondent herein preferred another appeal in terms of Section 44 of M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Additional Commissioner Division Sagar. The Additional Commissioner Division Sagar vide order dated 21.12.2022 has allowed the appeal and has issued direction for mutation of names of legal representative of Late Sujanmal S/o Ratanlal on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the present case, there was no order on merit by the Nayab Tahsildar inasmuch as, the Nayab Tahsildar kept the proceedings in abeyance in view of the pendency of the civil suit, therefore, the powers which are vested in an Original Authority could not have been exercised by the Appellate Authority. It is contended by the counsel that, at the most, the Commissioner could have remitted back the matter to the Nayab Tahsildar to pass an order on merit but, he could not have ventured upon himself to pass an order of mutation. Thus, the order deserves to be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that as there was no interim order in the civil suit, there was no impediment in proceeding with the application moved by the respondent under Section 164 of M.P. Land Revenue Code and, therefore, the Nayab Tahsildar fell in error while passing an order dated 20.01.2020, declining to pass any order on application filed under Section 164 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. It is also contended by the counsel for the respondent that the said aspect was not considered by the Sub Divisional Officer, Beena District Sagar as well and he also dismissed the appeal in a purely mechanical manner. However, the controversy was rightly taken cognizance of by the Additional Commissioner Division Sagar and the order dated 21.12.2022 has been passed by which, a direction has been issued to mutate the name of legal representatives of Late Sujanmal S/o Ratanlal on record.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order is just and proper and more particularly, as there is no interim order in the civil suit, there was no impediment in passing an order of mutation.

5. Heard rival submissions and perused the record.

6. A perusal of an order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the Nayab Tahsildar reflects that the Nayab Tahsildar in view of the pendency of civil suit filed vide RCS No.113/A/2019, declined to entertain the application and observed that after disposal of the suit, the application shall be dealt with. Meaning thereby, the Nayab Tahsildar neither allowed the application nor dismissed the same and only kept the matter in abeyance. The Sub Divisional Officer also affirmed the order of Nayab Tahsildar vide order dated 12.02.2021 . The Additional Commissioner, while setting aside the order of Nayab Tahsildar dated 20.01.2020 and Sub Divisional Officer dated 12.02.2021 issued direction for mutation of name of legal representatives of Late Sujanmal S/o Ratanlal on record.

7. Thus, in the present case, the Appellate Authority could not have exercised the power which are vested in Original Authority as held in the case of Manohar Lal vs. Ugrasen (2010) 11 SCC 557.

8. If