BHEEKAM SINGH Vs. GAUTAM MALLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner- Bheekam Singh challenging the order dtd. 26/5/2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in case no. 0930/Appeal/2021-22 affirming the order dtd. 28/2/2022 passed by SDO (Revenue), Narsinghpur, in case no. 0005/Appeal/2021-22 whereby setting aside the order dtd. 21/8/2017 passed by Naib Tahsildar in case no.67/A-6/2016-17 allowing petitioner's application for mutation on the basis of judgment and decree passed by civil Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a civil suit was filed by petitioner-Bheekam Singh for declaration of title and permanent injunction which was decreed on 17/7/2017 by 2ndCivil Judge Class-II, Narsinghpur in civil suit no.30-A/14. On that basis, he moved an application for mutation of his name, which after giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerning parties, was allowed by Naib Tahsildar, Narsinghpur vide order dtd. 21/8/2017, but in appeal learned SDO vide its order dtd. 28/2/2022 set aside the order passed by Naib Tahsildar and the order of SDO has been affirmed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur vide its order dtd. 26/5/2023.

(3.) However, learned Counsel fairly concedes that although the civil appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed on 1/10/2021 by first appellate Court but the second appeal no.1892/2021 filed by Omkar Singh and others, has been admitted by High Court on 10/1/2023 and the judgment and decree dtd. 17/7/2017 and 1/10/2021 are subject matter of the second appeal no.1892/2021 still pending before this Court. He also submits that learned Naib Tahsildar rightly passed the order of mutation on the basis of judgment and decree dtd. 17/7/2017 but learned SDO and Additional Commissioner have on different grounds, set aside the order of Naib Tahsildar, which are not sustainable in the eyes of law. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays for allowing the miscellaneous petition.