Mutation of property in revenue records does not confer title and must await the outcome of a civil suit regarding ownership.

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

In the present writ appeal u/S 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam , 2005 has been filed assailing the order dated 27.07.2023 passed in W.P. no. 16643/2023 whereby the appellant had challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 11.07.2023 passed in Case No. 234/Appeal/2022-23 by the respondent no.1.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the legal heirs of one Barkatullah and respondent no.4 and 5 are also legal heirs of Barkatullah. Respondent no.4 and 5 on the basis of sale deed dated 24.09.2010 had filed a mutation application before the respondent no.3/Tehsildar. Late Barkatullah was the owner and in possession of the agricultural land at Village Sihasa Tehsil and Distt. Indore, Patwari Halka No. 07 viz. 1. Khasra No. 89, Rakba 1.392 hectare. 2. Khasra No. 90/1/2 Rakba 0.244 hectare. 3. Khasra No. 91/2/2 Rakba 0.110 hectare. 4. Khasra No. 99/1/1 Rakba 1.274 hectare. 5. Khasra No. 99/2 Rakba 2.953 hectare. 6. Khasra No. 88/1 Rakba 1.748 hectare. 7. Khasra No. 88/2 Rakba 0.202 hectare. 8. Khasra No. 102/1 Rakba 2.460 hectare. 9. Khasra No. 99/1/3/4 Rakba 1.278 hectare. 10. Khasra No. 98/3 Rakba 0.405 hectare 3. The aforesaid ten khasras totalling to 12.066 hectare area. The respondent no.4 had applied for mutation before the Nayab Tehsildar which was registered at Case No. 172/अ- 6/2011-12 which was allowed by order dated 24.09.2012. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellants in appeal which was upheld vide order dated 14.03.2017. A second appeal was filed which was registered as Appeal No. 295/Appeal/2016-17 which stood allowed vide order dated 15.01.2020 by quashing both the orders and matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar to pass a fresh order. The second appellate order was in favour of the appellants. Barkatullah had died on 07.10.2010 and after remand, the respondent no.3 vide order dated 14.02.2022 mutated the land in favour of Rubina instead of appellants and others.

Being aggrieved, appellants filed appeal before the respondent no.2

u/S 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code , 1959[referred to as 'the Code' hereinafter] challenging the order dated 14.02.2022. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 05.05.2022 and direction was given to restore the name of appellants. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 and 5 preferred review petition u/S 51 of the Code before respondent no.3

which was dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2022 . The appellants filed W.P. No. 12303/2022 before this Court and vide order dated 28.06.2022, the respondent no. 3 was directed to comply with the order dated 05.05.2022. Thereafter, respondent no.4 and 5 preferred a second appeal which was admitted. The appellants preferred W.P. No. 19737/2022 which was disposed off vide order dated 03.09.2022 directing the respondent no.1 to decide the appeal expeditiously within two months. The appeal was disposed off resulting into filing of the writ petition. The writ petition was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ appeal is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the revenue authorities could not have mutated names of respondent no. 4 and 5 in the revenue records in the light of the registered sale deed dated 24.09.2010. The appellants had challenged the order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the respondent no.1 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 and 5 was allowed directing the Sub Divisional Officer to enter the names of respondent no.4 and 5 in the revenue record, which was contrary to the orders passed by this Court as well as the fact that mutation on the basis of sale deed is not permissible.

However, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without considering the settled legal position that mutation of names cannot be done on the basis of sale deed by the revenue authorities.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the order passed by learned Single Judge is il