IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE rd ON THE 3 OF MARCH, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 12644 of 2020 BETWEEN:-

1. SMT. SAVITRI BAI W/O SH. BHANWAR LAL KACHHI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE FATEHPUR, TEHSIL ASHOK NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DHAN KUNARBAI W/O KANHAIYA KACHHI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE VILLAGE FATEHPUR, TEHSIL -ASHOK NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SPS KUSHWAH - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. NARAYAN PRASAD S/O SHANKAR LAL SHARMA R/O VILL. KHAJURIYA KALA TEH AND DISTT.

ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. PAWAN SHARMA S/O NARAYAN PRASAD SHARMA VILLAGE KHAJURIYA KALA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT ASHOK NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUSHMA W/O RAKESH NAYAK VILLAGE VARPIPRIYA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT LALITPUR, U.P. (UTTAR PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI S.K.SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3.)

This petition coming on for HEARING this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred challenging the order dated 31.07.2020 passed by Addl. Collector, Ashok Nagar while exercising revisional jurisdiction in Revision No.0055/Revision/2019-2020 dismissing the revision arising out of the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by Tehsildar entertaining an application filed under Section 115 read with Section 32 of the MPLRC holding that without hearing other side in the matter, it would not be possible to adjudicate the application.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application under Section 115 of MPLRC filed by the respondents was not maintainable and the proper course to the respondents would have been to file an application under Section 116 of MPLRC but vide impugned order, without going into this aspect of the matter, the application under Section 115 of MPLRC has been entertained, registered and had observed that the application could be decided only after hearing the parties and had directed the matter to be listed for further hearing. It was further contended that under Section 115 of MPLRC, if Tehsildar suo motu finds some wrong or incorrect entries in the land record prepared under Section 114 of MPLRC, he is empowered to direct necessary corrections in the revenue record after making such inquiry as he deems fit. But since names of present petitioners had appeared in the revenue records on the basis of an agreement entered into between petitioners and respondent No.1, it was not a wrong or incorrect entry and at the most it can be said to be a dispute, the application would have only been maintainable under Section 116 of MPLRC as scope of both the applications are quite different. Thus, he prayed for setting aside of the order dated 31.07.2020 passed by Addl. Collector in revision as well as the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by Tehsildar.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that they are original owners of the land and on the basis of some agreement, the petitioners got their names mutated in the revenue record and it is an admitted position that on the basis of agreement, no title accrues in favour of any person. Therefore, the names which have been mutated in the revenue record is per se illegal and should not have been recorded by the authorities, therefore, they have moved an application under Section 115 of MPLRC. It has further been argued that even if it is assumed that the application should have been preferred under Section 116 of MPLRC, the nomenclature does not make any difference because there is only a slight difference between two sections. In both eventualities, the application is required to be moved and if Tehsildar suo motu finds that there is some wrong or incorrect entries made in the revenue record, he could resolve/correct the entries or the dispute between the parties, as the case may be. Thus, mere mentioning of Section 115 of MPLRC, will not make the application nugatory and cannot be dismissed on th