ASLAM GANI PATRAWALA Vs. JASBEER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order -dated 30.4.2010 - Annexure P/6 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior (MP) reversing the concurrent findings recorded by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner in the matter of mutation of the land in question, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) Dispute in this writ petition pertains to certain land bearing Khasra Nos. 66 and 71 situated in Patwari Halka No. 29, Village Sultanpur, District Raisen, MP. The land in question belonged to one Shri Usmangani Patrawala, who was staying in Bombay and as per the death certificate - Annexure P/1, Shri Usmangani Patrawala had died on 4.2.1990. Petitioner Aslam Gani Patrawala is the son of Late Shri Usmangani Patrawala and this writ petition is filed through the Attorney Holder of the petitioner, one Shri Mohammed Aamir Khan.

(3.) WITH regard to land bearing Khasra Nos. 66 and 71, it was pointed out that on the basis of the so -called Hibanama, the name of the original owner Late Shri Usmangani Patrawala has been deleted and instead the name of respondents 1 to 4 have been entered into the revenue records on 8.12.1993 by the then Naib Tehsildar and the Patwari. In the report, it was indicated that after going through the original records with regard to mutation it is found that there is no application available for mutation with regard to item No. 56; the entry has been made merely on the basis of a Hibanama, but neither a copy of the Hibanama nor the application for mutation nor records pertaining to any proceedings conducted for transfer of the land is available. It was indicated in the report that as per Muslim Law whenever a land is transferred on the basis of a gift i.e... Hibanama, proof of the gift has to be established by leading evidence. In the present case, it was pointed out that the entries are made without there being any proof or evidence led with regard to the gift in question. Accordingly, in a detailed report dated 8.7.2005, SDO, Gauharganj communicated to the Collector that there are large scale irregularities in the mutation done, for a particular area, the statutory provision of Sections 109 and 110 have not been followed and even revenue for the State by way of stamp duty in the matter of transfer is denied. Accordingly, recommendation was made by the SDO that it is a fit case where the powers of suo motu revision under section 50 of the MP Land Revenue Code should be exercised. The said report was placed before the Collector and alongwith the said report certain findings recorded by the Economic Offences Wing also pointing out large scale irregularities was placed before the Collector. Accordingly, vide note -sheet dated 27.7.2005 - Annexure P/15, the Collector directed for registration of a proceeding for exercising suo motu powers under section 50 not only for affecting mutation by breach of the statutory provision of sections 109 and 110 of the MP Land Revenue Code, but also with regard to evasion of stamp duty on the alleged transfer. After registering the case on 22.7.2005, notices were issued to all concerned, inquiry was conducted and finally, it was found by the Collector after due inquiry that the mutation was ordered in an illegal manner, contrary to the statutory provision. The same is illegal and, therefore, vide order -dated 28.5.2007 - Annexure P/2, the Collector cancelled the mutation ordered on 8.12.1993 and directed for restoration of the entry as it was prior to 1993. Aggrieved by this order passed by the Collector on 28.5.2007, respondents preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal and the Additional Commissioner vide order -dated 30.9.2009 - Annexure P/3 having rejected the same and upheld the order of the Collector, revision was therefore, filed before the Board of Revenue by respondents 1 to 4, and the revision having been allowed vide order -dated 30.4.2010, petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue.