Mutation proceedings do not confer ownership and can be impacted by pending civil suits regarding title.

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI

th

ON THE 8 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No. 2916 of 2025 ASHOK AND OTHERS Versus REVENUE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Veer Kumar Jain - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Jitendra Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Bhuwan Gautam - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia This is an appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 filed by the appellants who were respondents No.4 to 6 in a Writ Petition No. 37660/2025, which came to be allowed vide order dated 19.09.2025 by the Writ Court.

02. According to the appellants, they had purchased the land bearing survey No.124/1/1, 124/1, 125/2/1 (area 2.972 hectares) and survey No. 1135/6 (area 0.500 hectares) situated at Village Kunwali Tehsil Mhow, District Indore, vide sale deed dated 09.02.2022 from Rameshchandra Khati, Keshav Prasad Khati, Manohar Khati, and Bhagwan Khati all sons of the late Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH Champa Lal. They applied before the Naib Tehsildar for mutation of their name. Vide order dated 22.06.2023, Naib Tehsildar had allowed the application under Sections 109 & 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the " MPLRC ").

03. The respondents No.4 & 5 being daughters of Champa Lal objected to such mutation and thereafter challenged the aforesaid order of mutation by way of appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. Vide order dated 06.10.2023, the SDO has dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, they approached the Additional Commissioner, and vide order dated 11.06.2024, the Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside both the orders. According to the appellants, when respondents No. 4 & 5 tried to interfere with their possession, they filed a suit before the Civil Court which is registered and pending as RCSA/150/2023 along with an application for a temporary injunction. Vide order dated 26.02.2024, a temporary injunction has been granted to the appellants. Simultaneously, the appellants filed a Writ Petition No. 26349/20254 against the order dated 11.06.2024, which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication. Vide order dated 13.08.2025, the Additional Commissioner now allowed the appeal and confirmed the order of Naib Tehsildar and SDO.

04. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents No.4 & 5 filed a Writ Petition No.37660/2025 before this Court. The appellants appeared on the first date of hearing, as they had already filed the caveat; therefore, the Writ Court heard both the parties and allowed the writ petition vide order dated 19.09.2025 inter alia on the ground that the civil suit is Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH already pending between the parties in respect of the title of the disputed land. Hence, the mutation proceeding before the Naib Tehsildar has no legal sanctity even if there was no temporary injunction order passed in the civil suit restraining such proceeding. The order passed by the Commissioner dated 13.08.2025, the order passed by the SDO dated 06.10.2023 and order passed by the Naib Tehsildar dated 22.06.2023 have been quashed. Hence, this writ appeal before this Court.

05. Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that mere pendency of a civil suit does not operate as a stay on mutation proceedings; therefore, the Naib Tehsildar did not commit any error of law while passing the order of mutation in favour of appellants. Shri Jain, senior counsel further submits that as on today, the appellants are registered owners of the land in question by virtue of the registered sale deed; thus, their names were rightly mutated in the revenue records, and such entries are liable to be continued until the civil court denies the title to them. Shri Jain learned senior counsel further submits that the Writ Court has