IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL ON THE 5^th OF JULY, 2022 MISC. PETITION No. 5198 of 2019 Between:-

RAMRATAN S/O LATE SHRI BAHORAN SEHARIA , AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O VILL. LAKHANGAWAN TAHSIL & DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PRAKASH CHANDRA CHANDIL ADVOCATE )

AND

1. MOHAN DE W/O LATE SHRI GABDU SEHARIA R/O VILL. HARNAGAR MAHUA KHEDA TAHSIL & DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. JANVED S/O LT GABDU SEHARIA R/O VILL.

HARNAGAR MAHUA KHEDA TAHSIL &

DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. HARIYA S/O LT GABDU SEHARIA R/O VILL.

HARNAGAR MAHUA KHEDA TAHSIL &

DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. BENA BAI W/O KUNDAN R/O VILL. HARNAGAR MAHUA KHEDA TAHSIL & DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAMESH PRASAD GUPTA ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 )

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

ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order of Tahsildar dated 30.10.2015 in Case No.135/13-14/A-6 (Annexure P/3) whereby his mutation has been cancelled and this order has been affirmed by the SDM (Revenue) and Additional Commissioner vide Annexures P/1 and P/2.

Brief facts of the case are that Mohande widow of Gabdu, Janved and Hariya, sons of of Gabdu, and one Benabai made a complaint before the M.P. State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe Commission to this effect that some persons of Gujar community with the help of forged registry, got mutated 56 Beegha of land situated at village Harnagar, which was in the name of Gabdu, in their favour. On the aforesaid complaint, Tahsildar Shivpuri, had gone to the village and from record room of Tahsil called mutation register for the year 2010-11. As per aforesaid register, (1) sale-deed No.1195 dated 1.7.2010 area 1.89 hectare, mutation register No.1 dated 10.12.2020 in place of seller Kamal D/o Ramkishan, buyer Ramratan's son of Bahorna, (2) sale-deed No.2215 dated 4.10.2010 area 2.83 hectare mutation register No.4 dated 10.12.2010 in place of seller Siyabai D/o Balkishan and others, buyer Ramratan's son of Bahorna (3) sale-deed No.2368 dated 2.4.2011 area 2.00 hectare mutation register No.6 dated 29.6.2011 in place of seller Hariya, Janved sons of Gabdu, Mohande widow of Gabdu, buyer Sipahi's son of Ramhet- mutations were accepted. Tahsildar is of the opinion that aforesaid sale-deed and mutation are doubtful. He took permission from SDO for review. After getting the permission to review, he called both the parties and took their statements. In their statements, complainant Mohande widow of Gabdu, and Janved and Hariya, sons of Gabdu, had stated that they never sold the land by registered sale-deed. Buyers have not cross-examined the aforesaid witnesses. Tahsildar found that (1) sale-deed No.1195 dated 1.7.2020 area 1.89 hectare, mutation register No.1 dated 10.12.2010 in place of seller Kamal D/o Ramkishan, buyer Ramratan's son of Bahorna, (2) sale-deed No.2215 dated 4.10.2010 area 2.83 hectare mutation register No.4 dated 10.12.2010 in place of seller Siyabai D/o Balkishan and others, buyer Ramratan's son of Bahorna (3) sale-deed No.2368 dated 2.4.2011 area 2.00 hectare mutation register No.6 dated 29.6.2011 in place of seller Hariya, Janved sons of Gabdu, Mohande widow of Gabdu, buyer Sipahi's son of Ramhet- mutations were accepted. Therefore, he cancelled the aforesaid mutations. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner -Ramratan filed an appeal before the SDM who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that sale-deeds on the basis of which mutation has been done in his favour have not been found proved and the vendors of the sale-deed have stated that they have not executed said sale- deeds. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court, petitioner has filed second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, who also dismissed the appeal of th