1. Mutation challenge by daughter excluded from deceased father's land record — Application under Section 32, MPLRC. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 56527
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajendra Kumar-IV, J
Sirnam – Appellant
Versus
Getadevi – Respondent
MISC. PETITION No. 2597 of 2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. S. Chauhan
For the Respondents: Vinay Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. S. Chauhan
For the Respondents: Vinay Kumar
The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, will not interfere with a revenue authority's decision to entertain a mutation correction application under Section 32 of the MPLRC if the proceeding is intended to determine the rights of legal heirs and no manifest illegality is present.
Headnote:(A) Land Revenue Law - Mutation of Property - Correction of Records - Entitlement of legal heirs including daughters to be recorded as heirs under Section 32 of MPLRC is a valid proceeding where previous mutation excluded rightful heirs. (Para 4)
(B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Scope of Supervision - The High Court will not interfere in the order of a revenue authority fixing a matter for evidence if no manifest illegality or irregularity is shown and no prejudice is caused to the parties. (Para 4, 5)
Issues: Whether the order of the Tehsildar entertaining an application for correction of mutation under Section 32 of the MPLRC was illegal or irregular.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contend no illegality in excluding daughter and wife from mutation; respondent seeks correction. (Para 3 )
3. Tehsildar found illegality in earlier mutation order; no prejudice caused by entertaining correction application. (Para 4 )
4. An order fixing a date for evidence under Section 32, MPLRC does not warrant interference under Article 227. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Petition dismissed; Tehsildar directed to decide mutation within six months after hearing parties. (Para 5 )
6. Is a second revision maintainable under the MPLRC after its amendment?
No, the Additional Commissioner held that after the amendment to the MPLRC, a second revision is not maintainable. (Para 2 )
7. Can a Tehsildar's order fixing a date for evidence be challenged under Article 227?
No, such an interlocutory order causes no prejudice and does not warrant interference under Article 227. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. What is the scope of correction of revenue records under Section 32 of the MPLRC?
The provision allows correction of errors in mutation orders, including omission of legal heirs like a daughter. (Para 2 , 4 )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioners are challenging the order dated 14/12/2021 passed by Tehsildar, Mehgaon, District Bhind in Case No.1397/A-6/2020-21, order dated 28/3/2022 passed by Additional Collector, District Bhind in Case No.0054/2021-22/Revision and order dated 19/9/2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena in Case No.0001/Revision/2022-23.
2. It appears that property was recorded in the name of one Ramjeet Singh, who died leaving behind his wife, two sons and one daughter. At the first instance, mutation was done in favour of sons only. Later on, Smt. Geetadevi- respondent filed an application under Section 32 of MPLRC for correction of the mutation order alleging that she is daughter of Ramjeet Singh and her name should also be recorded in place of her father. Tehsildar entertained the application by order dated 14/12/2021 fixing a date for evidence. Challenging the order of Tehsildar dated 14/12/2021 petitioners filed a revision before Additional Collector, which has been dismissed. There-against, petitioners filed second revision before the Commissioner, which came to be heard and decided by Additional Commissioner holding that after amendment in the MPLRC second revision is not maintainable. All the orders are impugned in the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Admittedly, property in dispute was recorded in the name of one Ramjeet Singh, who happened to be father of petitioners no.1, 2 & respondent and husband of petitioner no.3. After the death of their father-Ramjeet Singh, petitioners no.1 and 2 got their names recorded in place of their father as legal heirs. Admittedly, petitioner no.3 was his wife and respondent is his daughter. Why their names have not been recorded as legal heirs, is not explained in the first order of mutation. Learned Tehsildar found illegality in the said order and entertained application under Section 32 of MPLRC and fixed for hearing of parties. By this order no prejudice has been caused to the parties and mutation between the legal heirs is yet to be decided. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any illegality or irregularity, legal or otherwise, in the impugned order of Tehsildar.
5. In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of Tehsildar in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed accordingly. However, Tehsildar concerned is directed to decide the matter of mutation within six months, after providing full opportunity of hearing to both parties, from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
