IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI th ON THE 9 OF MAY, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 10890 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

SMT. GEETA RAWAT W/O SHRI ANAND SINGH RAWAT, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JOB GOVT. R/O S-812 NEHRU NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY MS. ANJALI SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER TAHSIL HUZUR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. TEHSILDAR TAHSIL HUZUR DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. NEERAJ PATIDAR S/O MOHANLAL PATIDAR R/O BARKHEDA NATHU TAHSIL HUZUR BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI ARNAV TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)

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

ORDER

This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 18.02.2020 (Annesure-P/8) passed by respondent No.4/Tahsildar Tahesil Huzur District Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA Bhopal.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner purchased the land situated Khasra No.4461/1 vide sale-deed dated 19.03.2013 from private respondent-Neeraj Patidar. Upon purchase of land an application seeking mutation in terms of Section 109 and 110 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "MPLRC") was filed before the Tahesildar, Bhopal. The said application was turned down by Tahsildar by passing an order dated

25.05.2017 (Annexure-P/5).

3. Assailing the order dated 25.05.2017 passed by Tahsildar, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Huzur, District Bhopal. The said appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2017 which is contained in Annexure-P/6. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the Second Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Division Bhopal in terms of Section 44(1) of the MPLRC. The Additional Commissioner, Bhopal vide order dated 30.09.2019 which is contained in Annexure-P/7 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and directed the Tahsildar to mutate the name of erstwhile owner of the property.

4. In the revenue record, so far as in the year 1962-63 is concerned and later on, accordingly, the name of the present petitioner has been recorded in the revenue records. In pursuance to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar vide impugned order dated 18.02.2020 contained in Annexure-P/8 has declined to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records while observing that in the absence of permission by the competent authority in terms of the Section

165(7)(b) of MPLRC, the name of the petitioner cannot be mutated.

5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, there is an Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA attempt by subordinate authority to overeach an order passed by the higher authority. It is contended by the counsel when the matter was conclusively decided by the Additional Commissioner while passing the order dated 30.09.2019, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to deviate from the directives issued by the Commissioner and the mutation in favour of the petitioner could not have been declined on the strength of the impugned order.

6. It is contended by the counsel that the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 30.09.2019, has exercised the power of second appellate authority by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 44(1) of MPLRC, therefore, Tahsildar being original authority was duty bound to ensure compliance of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 30.09.2019.

7. It is further contended by the counsel that in absence of any challenge to order dated 30.09.2019, the same still holding and therefore, the impugned order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Tahsildar contained in Annexure-P/8 deserves to be quashed.

8. Per contra, counsel for the State submits that