Revenue courts lack authority to decide on disputed land titles when a civil suit is pending, affirming the supremacy of civil jurisdiction.

ORDER With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

02. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore, whereby the order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dr. Ambedkar Nagar (Mhow), District Indore as well as the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Tappa Maanpur, Tehsil Dr. Ambedkar Nagar (Mhow), District Indore have been affirmed whereby the mutation application preferred by respondents No.4 to 6 had been allowed.

03. An application under Sections 109, 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code , 1959 was filed by respondents No.4 to 6 before the Naib Tehsildar for their mutation over the disputed land. They claimed to have acquired the same by way of a registered sale deed dated 09.02.2022 having been executed in their favour by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA Ramesh Chandra, Keshav Prasad, Manohar and Bhagwan, brothers of the petitioners. As per the petitioners, the disputed land was held by Late Champalal, their father and father of Ramesh Chandra, Keshav Prasad, Manohar and Bhagwan. He died intestate in the year 2013. Thereafter, brothers of petitioners got themselves mutated over the disputed land in their revenue records by showing themselves to be the sole successors of Late Champalal without disclosing the fact that sons of Champalal are also the heirs. On strength of the said mutation, they sold the disputed land in favour of respondents No.4 to 6 registered sale deed dated 09.02.2022. For declaration that the sale deed is null and void and for other consequential reliefs, the petitioners have already preferred RCS A-163/2022 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District Indore against respondents No.4 to 6 and their brothers, which is pending.

04. In the meanwhile, an application under Section s 109 , 110 of the Code which had been preferred by respondents No.4 to 6 came to be allowed by the Naib Tehsildar by order dated 22.06.2023. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Code before the Sub Divisional Officer which was dismissed by him by order dated 06.10.2023. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred second appeal under Section 44(2) of the Code before the Commissioner, which has also been dismissed by him by the impugned order.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that admittedly at the time of passing of the order by the Naib Tehsildar, civil suit instituted by the petitioners was pending before the Civil Court in which a relief has been specifically claimed for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondents No.4 to 6. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Naib Tehsildar, but despite the same, order of mutation was passed by him which order Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA has been affirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as by the Commissioner. Mutation proceedings during pendency of the civil suit cannot and ought not to have been proceeded with. Reliance has been placed by him on the decision of this Court in Rajeshwari Bhatt and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others , W.P.

No.416/2016 decided on 22.11.2017.

06. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 6 has submitted that no objection has ever been taken by the petitioners to the mutation of their brothers despite the same having taken place in the year 2016 and the petitioners being aware of the same. Respondents No.4 to 6 have purchased the disputed land from the recorded owners upon payment of valuable sale consideration hence are entitled to be mutated over the same since they are claiming such mutation under strength of a registered document. They have spent huge amount in investing in the disputed land and if they