MUNESHWAR PRASAD Vs. TEERATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging order dtd. 16/12/2013 passed in Revision Case No.2420/III/2013 by Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that one Mangal Chamar was owner of land bearing survey No.148 measuring 0.547 Hectare situated in village Karodaha, Teshil Sirmour. Said land was sold to respondents namely Teerath, Jageshwar and Gangadeen by Mangal Chamar. Mangal Chamar died, therefore, Revenue Inspector, Baikunthpur entered the names of legal heirs of Mangal Chamar in revenue records i.e. wife Smt. Durghatiya Bai and daughter Smt. Sathiniya. Appeal was filed against said order of mutation before SDO, Sirmour. SDO, Sirmour remanded the matter back vide its order dtd. 13/05/1988 in Revenue Case No.247-A6/87-88 for passing fresh order after hearing all the interested parties. Nayab Tehsildar after hearing the parties found that sale-deed was executed on stamp paper of Rs.50.00 in the year 1952. Sale-deed was executed in favour of Swami Dayal S/o Ram Prasad. Petitioners are legal heirs of Swami Dayal. By order of Tehsildar dtd. 25/08/1989 mutation was allowed in name of Swami Dayal S/o Ram Prasad. Appeal was preferred against said order before SDO, which was allowed and matter was again remanded by SDO vide its order dtd. 30/11/1990 to decide the case on basis of registered sale-deed. Order of SDO was challenged before Commissioner, Rewa. Appeal was allowed vide order dtd. 25/04/1996 in Appeal No.79/A-6/1990-91. Case was remanded back for exhibiting registered sale-deed and other original documents in case. New mutation case was registered in Tehsil as Case No.11-A 6/1995-96 and Tehsildar allowed mutation vide order dtd. 18/03/2002 in the name of legal heirs of Swami Dayal namely Devkali, Munishwar, Kamleshwar, Ramkali, Nagendra Kumar and Rajendra Kumar. Again Appeal was preferred before SDO. SDO allowed Appeal vide order dtd. 19/09/2005 and set aside the order of mutation dtd. 18/03/2002 and case was again remanded back. Said remand order was challenged before Commissioner in Revision No.93/2005-06. Commissioner again interfered with order of SDO and allowed Revision vide order dtd. 01/06/2013 and set-aside order of SDO and affirmed the order of Tehsildar, Baikunthpur dtd. 18/03/2002. Said order passed in Revision dtd. 01/06/2013 was subject matter of challenge before Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue held that sale-deed in favour of Swami Dayal was executed on a plain paper. No application for mutation was filed for 16 long years, which makes transaction doubtful. Further legal heirs of deceased Mangal Chamar executed registered sale-deed dtd. 31/08/1988 in favour of applicants i.e. Teerath, Jageshwar and Gangadeen. Subsequent registered sale-deed was valid document, therefore, mutation ought to have been ordered in name of applicants and not in name of non-applicants before Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue allowed Revision and set aside order of Tehsildar dtd. 18/03/2002 and that of SDO dtd. 19/09/2005 and that of Upper Commissioner dtd. 01/06/2013 and directed mutation to be made in name of Teerath, Jageshwar and Gangadeen, who are respondents in this Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that if application for mutation is not filed for 33 long years will not nullify sale- deed of the year 1952 executed in favour of Swami Dayal. Original document was filed before Tehsildar and same was exhibited. Board of Revenue has given incorrect finding that possession is with respondents since execution of sale deed by Durghatiya Bai dtd. 31/07/1988. Specific finding has been recorded that petitioners are in possession of land in question. In proceedings under Sec. 145 of Cr.P.C. also it was held that petitioners were in possession. It is further submitted that Board of Revenue has ignored the fact that Civil Suit is filed by respondents for declaration, possession and compensation. Said suit was dismissed. Board of Revenue also missed the fact that in application for mutation filed by Swami Dayal, Mangalwa S/o Shivcharan filed reply, in which it has been mentioned that sale-deed was executed in favour of Swami Dayal and he does not have any objection in mutation proceeding. Board of Revenue failed to take into account that sale consideration of property was Rs.50.00, therefore, there was no need to execute registered sale-deed. Board of Revenue had committed an error in interfering in well reasoned order passed by Court below.