HIMMAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Tahsildar, whereby he has refused to mutate the names of the petitioners in the Revenue Records on the ground that there are no instructions in the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer for mutation of the names of the petitioners.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioners are owners of the land bearing survey no. 18 situated at Village Jagatpur, Tahsil Kolaras, District Shivpuri. After a long litigation being fought with respect to the Bhumi Swami Rights pertaining to the land in question on the ground that the grandfather of the petitioners was Bhumi Swami of the land and he has fought long litigation and got obtained the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2000 passed by the Court of I Additional District Judge, Shivpuri with respect to the land in question. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by I Additional District Judge, was put to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also and the same is attained is finality. It is submitted that thereafter an application was filed for mutation of the land by the petitioners.

(3.) It is submitted that the matter was initially adjudicated by the SDO, Kolaras, District Shivpuri with respect to the mutation of the petitioners and an order has been passed on 25.10.2014 which was put to challenge before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior and vide order dated 05.12.2018, the order passed by the SDO has been upheld. It is submitted that thereafter an application for mutation was filed on 26.09.2019 which was rejected by the Tahsildar, Kolaras, District Shivpuri stating that there are no specific directions to make mutation in the order passed by the SDO. It is argued that a totally non-speaking order has been passed by the Tahsildar on the application filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that learned SDO has allowed the application and the order passed by the SDO has been affirmed by the Additional Commissioner, therefore, there was no requirement for a specific direction being given for recording the names of the petitioners in the Revenue Records, but despite of the same, the application has been rejected arbitrarily. It is submitted that the Revenue Authorities are required to pass a reasoned order while declining for entertaining the application. He has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt Tara Bai Vs. Smt. Shanti Bai and ors. passed in W.P. No. 7120/2015 wherein, this Court has made an observation with respect to the fact that the Revenue Authorities are required to pass a well reasoned order while dealing with the application. It is submitted that although the remedy of appeal is available to petitioners, but as the order itself is non- reasoned order, therefore, and with a stroke of pen, the application has been turned down only on the ground that there are no directions by the senior authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer. He submits that the learned Tahsildar may be directed to reconsider the application of the petitioners and decide the same by passing a speaking order taking into consideration all the judgments and decrees and relevant documents which are accompanied with the application. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.