FIROZ KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dtd. 14/12/2021 (Annexure-P-5) whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dtd. 31/5/2016 (Annexure-P-3).

(2.) The land bearing Khasara No.482/29 and 484/2, Patwari Halka No.30/65, Bandobast No.80, situated at revenue circle Chand, District Chhindwara was owned and recorded in the name of one Safi Khan S/o Daraz Khan. The private respondents are legal heirs of late Safi Khan. According to the petitioner, on 12/12/2006, late Safi Khan sold part land of aforesaid Khasaras and the remaining land was gifted to the petitioner by executing a Hiba in presence of witnesses. The petitioner has states that after execution of Hiba, the petitioner came in possession of the said property and is residing therein with his family. He further states that on the basis of Hiba, the name of the petitioner came to be recorded in the Municipal record. On 15/6/2015 i.e. after the death of Safi Khan, the names of private respondents came to be recorded in the revenue record in place of Safi Khan notwithstanding the fact that after execution of Hiba, the petitioner became owner of the property. The petitioner challenged the Sanshodhan Panji by way of filing an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Chourai. The said authority vide order dtd. 20/10/2015 (Annexure-P-2), held that the mutation of private respondents was done without the legal process and accordingly set aside the Sanshodhan Panji. However, SDO continued with the proceedings to ascertain genuineness of the Hiba executed in favour of the petitioner. The SDO thereafter, on 31/5/2016 (Annexure-P-3), dismissed the appeal and directed that the name of private respondents be mutated. The said order dtd. 31/5/2016 was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Commission in an appeal which has also suffered dismissal vide order dtd. 14/12/2021 and hence, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the Sub Divisional Officer has held that the name of the private respondents were wrongly recorded by way of Sanshodhan Panji and thereafter, he had no jurisdiction to go into the question of genuineness of Hiba and, hence an illegality has been committed, therefore, and interference is sought for. He places reliance on the decision of this case in the matter of Ranjit alias Bhaiyu Mohite vs. Smt. Nandita Singh & Others 2021 1 RN 221 and another unreported order in the case of Harwai vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others M.P No.509 of 2021 dtd. 17/2/2021.