NAND SINGH Vs. HRIDAY LAL SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by order dated 27/03/2017 passed by Board of Revenue in Case No.978- Two/2007. By the said impugned order Board of Revenue has set aside the order passed by Commissioner as well as by SDO in appeal and order of Tehsildar dated 15/06/2005 was upheld. Before Tehsildar Singrauli an ap- plication was filed by respondent nos.2 and 3 under Section 121 of M.P. Land Revenue Code for recording their possession over Khasra no.348/1. Tehsildar by its order dated 15/3/2004 allowed the application filed by re- spondent nos.1, 2, 3 and recorded their possession. Possession of respond- ent no.1 was recorded over 2 hectares of land, and possession of respondent no. 2 over 2 hectares of land and possession of respondent no.3 over 0.240 hectare of land out of khasra no.348/1.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in short, is that Nand Singh had pur- chased land from Matuklal by registered sale-deed dated 11/5/1972 bearing khasra no.348/1, measuring 2.832 hectares, khasra no.349/1, measuring 0.809 hectare, khasra no.354/1 measuring 1.619 hectare, total 5.260 hectares of land. Aforesaid khasra numbers are located in village Medholi, District Singrauli, M.P. Petitioner filed an application for mutation of his name over aforesaid khasra numbers. Application filed by petitioner no.1 was allowed vide order dated 27/9/73 and name of petitioner no.1 was recorded in revenue records. In this mutation proceedings, the respondent no.2 and 3 have filed their objection, but same was over ruled by the Tehsil- dar. Matuk Lal has been granted Patta over aforesaid khasra numbers vide order dated 03/02/1965. Patta of Matuk Lal was cancelled by the Collector vide order dated 23/6/74. But before cancellation of Patta all the land be- longing to Matuk Lal has already been sold to petitioner vide registered sale-deed dated 11/5/72. In these circumstances, petitioner has filed the suit bearing no.30-A/98 for declaration of ownership and Possession. Said civil suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 17/08/1999. Petitioner preferred an appeal bearing no. 17-A/02 before Additional District Judge. The appeal was decreed on 23/11/02 and it was held that petitioner is owner as well as in possession of suit land. State Government had filed an application under order 41 Rule 21 of Civil Procedure Code for the hearing of application of respondents against ex-parte decree passed by Additional District Judge. Additional District Judge dismissed the application of State vide order dated 30/08/11. The order passed by Addl. District Judge has become final.

(3.) In view of aforesaid circumstances, counsel for the petitioner ar- gued that Board of Revenue has committed an error of law in setting aside the order passed by Commissioner as well as SDO. Tehsildar has commit- ted an error of law in entertaining a time barred application filed by respon- dent no.2 and 3. Petitioner has purchased the land way back in the year 1972 and mutation orders were also passed in respect of same land. Re- spondent nos.1, 2, and 3 had raised objection in mutation proceedings, but same was dismissed. Civil suit has also been decreed in favour of peti- tioner and he was declared to be owner and also in possession of suit land. Learned Additional District Judge also held that patta of Matuklal was ille- gally cancelled by the Collector. In view of aforesaid argument, prayer was made to set aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue.