The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated

14.12.2021 (Annexure-P-5) whereby, the appeal preferred by the

petitioner has been rejected affirming the order passed by the Sub-

Divisional Officer dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure-P-3).

2.

The land bearing Khasara No.482/29 and 484/2, Patwari Halka

No.30/65, Bandobast No.80, situated at revenue circle Chand, District

Chhindwara was owned and recorded in the name of one Safi Khan S/o

Daraz Khan. The private respondents are legal heirs of late Safi Khan.

According to the petitioner, on 12.12.2006, late Safi Khan sold part

land of aforesaid Khasaras and the remaining land was gifted to the

petitioner by executing a Hiba in presence of witnesses. The petitioner

- 3 -

has states that after execution of Hiba, the petitioner came in

possession of the said property and is residing therein with his family.

He further states that on the basis of Hiba, the name of the petitioner

came to be recorded in the Municipal record. On 15.06.2015 i.e. after

the death of Safi Khan, the names of private respondents came to be

recorded in the revenue record in place of Safi Khan notwithstanding

the fact that after execution of Hiba, the petitioner became owner of the

property. The petitioner challenged the Sanshodhan Panji by way of

filing an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Chourai. The said

authority vide order dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure-P-2), held that the

mutation of private respondents was done without the legal process

and accordingly set aside the Sanshodhan Panji. However, SDO

continued with the proceedings to ascertain genuineness of the Hiba

executed in favour of the petitioner. The SDO thereafter, on

31.05.2016 (Annexure-P-3), dismissed the appeal and directed that the

name of private respondents be mutated. The said order dated

31.05.2016 was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional

Commission in an appeal which has also suffered dismissal vide order

dated 14.12.2021 and hence, the petitioner has preferred the instant

petition.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once

the Sub Divisional Officer has held that the name of the private

respondents were wrongly recorded by way of Sanshodhan Panji and

thereafter, he had no jurisdiction to go into the question of genuineness

of Hiba and, hence an illegality has been committed, therefore, and

interference is sought for. He places reliance on the decision of this

case in the matter of Ranjit alias Bhaiyu Mohite vs. Smt. Nandita

- 4 -

Singh & Others¹ and another unreported order in the case of Harwai

vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others²

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents on the

other hand has submitted that on the basis of Hiba, the Tahsildar vide

order dated 15.06.2015 mutated the name of the private respondent.

The authenticity of the Hiba and its applicability and other issues

cannot be adjudicated by the revenue Court and, therefore, if petitioner

has any right on the basis of said Hiba, he should approach the

competent Civil Court and hence, this Court should not interfere into

the well reasoned order passed by the Additional Commissioner. He

places reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Jahooran B

and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others³.

5.

Having considered the submissions made by rival parties, this

Court is of the opinion that the revenue authorities are precluded to

entertain an application for mutation on the basis of Hiba when the

authenticity is objected by the other side. The only remedy is available

to the party concerned is to approach the Civil Court for appropriate

relief. Same is the view taken by this Court in the matter of Jahooran

B and others (supra) while placing reliance on a decision rendered by

this Court in the matter of Rasool Khan (Dead) through Legal Heirs

and Ors. M.P. No.3263/2020, decided on 04.12.2020.

6.

The concluding part of order dated 20.10.2015 passed by the Sub

Divisional Officer is