LAWS(MPH)-2025-1-98

RAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Vs. URMILA

Decided On January 30, 2025
Ram Singh Raghuvanshi Appellant
V/S
URMILA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 5/10/2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in a Second Appeal No.651/2016-17; whereby, while allowing the said appeal, the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gwalior dtd. 31/7/2017 whereby the order of mutation of the petitioner in the revenue records vide Resolution No.17, dtd. 24/7/2004 on the basis of sale deed dtd. 12/1/2001 was set aside, was affirmed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the present petitioner had purchased the land bearing Survey No.1527, ad-measuring 1.62 hectares by way of registered sale deed dtd. 12/1/2001 from late Urmila through her husband Hari Singh as her power of attorney dtd. 10/1/2001. On the basis of the said sale deed, name of petitioner got duly mutated in the revenue records by the Gram Panchayat by passing resolution No.17 vide order dtd. 24/7/2004. After lapse of 10 years, the respondent (since deceased) had filed an application before the SubDivisional Officer, challenging the said order of mutation, which was registered as Case No.59/2013-14/Appeal. Vide order dtd. 31/7/2017, learned Sub-Divisional Officer had found that Village Panchayat has not followed the due procedure prescribed for mutation and moreover the Power of Attorney on the basis of which the said sale deed was executed was not properly registered, therefore, the resolution passed by Village Panchayat deserves to be quashed and accordingly, mutation of the name of the petitioner got cancelled. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior and vide order dtd. 5/10/2018, affirmed the Additional Commissioner while dismissing the said second appeal, the order of the SDO dtd. 31/7/2017. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that both the Appellate Authorities have passed the orders mechanically without applying their mind and by way of non-speaking orders, therefore, they deserve to be set aside.