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

th

ON THE 10 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 31648 of 2025 SHAKEELA PARVEEN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Varun Reynold Nathan - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Prabhanshu Shukla - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.

Shri Satish Kumar Dawra - Advocate for the respondent no.5 .

ORDER Assailing the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in RCMS Revenue Case No.0046/Appeal/2024-25 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Ranjhi, District Jabalpur as well as the order dated 10.6.2025 passed in RCMS Revenue Case No. 1178/Appeal/2024-25 by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur, the present petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she had purchased a part of property bearing Khasra No. 248, admeasuring 0.203 hectares from one Dulare Prajapati, vide registered sale deed 20.06.1988 who is the father of respondent no.5. Dulare Prajapati had sold 0.203 hectares of land out of 0.405 hectares of land of his holding. Dulare Prajapati had no other interest in Khasra No. 248 apart from the said 0.405 hectares of lands. Khasra No.248/2 was originally measuring 1.121 hectare and was under the absolute ownership and title of one Poparam who is the father of Dulare Prajapati and the grandfather of respondent no. 5. The aforesaid land was further subdivided into two parts i.e. one portion admeasuring 0.716 hectares which was in the ownership of Poparam and the other portion admeasuring 0.405 hectares which was transferred to Shri Dulare Prajapati. Dulare Prajapati vide two sale deeds both dated 20.06.1988 sold out 0.203 hectares of land in Khasra No. 248/2 to the petitioner and remaining 0.202 hectares of land in Khasra No. 248/2 to one Shri Ata Ullah Ansari. Dulare Prajapati disposed off his entire holdings of Khasra No. 248. Similarly, Poparam also sold his holdings to one Smt. Maya Bai Lodhi vide registered sale deed dated 17.10.1988. Smt. Maya Bai Lodhi preferred an application for mutation on the strength of the sale deed and her name was mutated in the revenue records. A separate Khasra No.248/8 was allotted to Dulare Prajapati. The entire controversy began by the formation of this new Khasra No. 248/8 in the name of Dulare Prajapati. Khasra No. 248/2 was recorded in the sale deed was subsequently changed to Khasra No. 248/8 and owing to this discrepancy, the petitioner could not get her name mutated in the revenue record. The boundaries mentioned in both the sale deeds dated 20.6.1088 are not disputed. The boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds matches with the present Khasra no. 248/8 as the same has been formed by sub dividing Khasra no. 248/2. Taking advantage of this discrepancies, the respondent no.5 preferred an application for mutation with respect to Khasra no. 248/8 admeasuring 0.405 hectares in the name of Dulare Prajapati. The petitioner preferred a civil suit before the Court learned 24th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jabalpur which was registered as Case No. RCSA/441/2016, which was eventually dismissed by the learned Court vide its order dated 05.08.2022 on the ground that the suit was filed for rectification after a lapse of three years, therefore, the civil suit being barred by limitation was dismissed. The petitioner has filed a subsequent civil suit which is pending adjudication and the same is registered as Case no. RCSA/ 297/2025, wherein after notice, the respondent no. 5 has marked his presence. In the meanwhile, the respondent no.5 succeeded in obtaining an order of mutation in his favour vide order dated 07.03.2023 passed in Revenue case no. 0905/A-6/2022-23. The said order was challenged by way of an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer which was dismissed vide order dated 9.2.2024. Against which, second appeal was preferred under Section 44 (2) of the MPLRC before the Additional Commissioner and vide order dated 2.8.2024 the Additional Commissioner al