IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 39424 of 2024 RAJENDRA SINGH Versus MOTILAL PATEL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Paresh Pareek - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Ratnesh Patel - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER This petition is filed assailing the orders dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P/3) whereby mutation order passed in favour of the petitioner has been set stayed by the authorities.

It is submitted that after passing of the order by the Tehsildar in mutation proceedings on 12.02.2024, the respondent No.1 has preferred a civil suit which is pending adjudication before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has drawn attention of this Court to para 12 of the plaint wherein it is specifically mentioned that mutation proceedings have been carried out after a lapse of 27 years by making forged and frivolous documents.

It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that till a decision is taken by the trial court, the parties may be directed to maintain status quo and the order passed in the civil suit will be binding on the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 fairly submits that the civil suit is pending adjudication before the civil court. It is contended that the petition may be disposed off with a direction to the parties to maintain status quo till the civil suit is decided and it may further be observed that revenue authorities will be bound by the observations made by the civil court.

This Court has already granted interim relief on 13.12.2024 and directed the parties to maintain status quo and no third party interest be created.

It is an admitted position that the civil suit is pending adjudication with respect to property in question. It is a settled law that the orders passed by the Civil Courts are binding on the revenue authorities. Therefore, any order passed by the Civil Court will have a binding effect on the revenue authorities. As the order passed by the Tehsildar directing for mutation of the property in the name of the petitioner was prior to filing of the civil suit as is reflected from para 12 of the plaint that the cause of action arose to the respondent No.1 on 12.02.2024 i.e. on the date on which the Tehsildar has passed the mutation order, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 19.02.2024 is unsustainable and it is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the name of the petitioner in revenue records in terms of the directions given by the Tehsildar. The said entries in the revenue records will be subject to final outcome of the civil suit proceedings.

Till the civil suit is finally decided, the parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to property in question and no third party interest will be created.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stand disposed off.

No order as to costs.

C.C. as per rules. (VISHAL MISHRA)

JUDGE sj