GAJENDRA Vs. PRIYANKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking review/recall of order dated 22.4.2019 passed by this Court dismissing M.P. No.2026/2019.

(2.) Shri Kutumbale, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that while dismissing the petition, this Court has overlooked the grounds raised in the writ petition. He submits that the Gram Sabha has passed the resolution dated 15.8.2005 without any authority and without notice to the present petitioner and other legal heirs of deceased Premnarayan. When the petitioner came to know about the mutation, he preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 10.1.2017. Thereafter, he preferred second appeal before the Additional Commissioner who allowed the same vide order dated 3.1.2018, but the Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional powers u/s. 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code has wrongly set aside the order of Addl. Commissioner and upheld the order of SDO. The petitioner is having Will in his favour and he is absolute owner of the land bearing Survey Nos. 289 and 316 by virtue of Will of Premnarayan in his favour. The - Additional Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of SDO which has wrongly been interfered by the Board of Revenue. This Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents is civil nature for which S.A. No.534/2016 is pending before this Court.

(3.) According to the petitioner, his brothers had filed Civil Suit in the year 1974 through their mother. The petitioner and husband of respondent No.1 i.e. Hariom were given half- half share in the land bearing Survey Nos. 183/1, 184/3 and 185 (new Nos. 225 and 278. Thereafter, Hariom expired and father of the petitioner Premnarayan filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit Premnarayan expired and by virtue of Will, name of petitioner was brought on record as his legal heir. The name of petitioner was transposed in his place. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 has sold the complete Survey Nos. 225 and 278 to respondent No.3 - Chhatarsingh. He applied for mutation before the Gram Sabha and vide resolution dated 15.8.2005, name of Chhatarsingh has been mutated in the revenue record.