RAMSHRI Vs. LALLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Gwalior, Division Gwalior.

(2.) It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession of the land bearing Survey No.45, 46, 88 and 89 situated in village Imloda Tehsil Badarwas and she has purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 13.06.2013 from the respondent. It is submitted that she is bonafide purchaser of the land in question and on the basis of the registered sale deed her name has been mutated in the revenue records. The order regarding mutation has been passed in the National Lok Adalat after following the due procedure. The objections were filed before the Tahsildar Badarwas for setting aside the mutation order after lapse of considerable period without there being any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the learned Tahsildar without issuing any notices to the petitioner and without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has reviewed the order dated 14.10.2016. It is alleged that prior to passing of the order dated 14.10.2016 no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner neither the principle of natural justice has been followed. The appeal preferred against the order dated 14.10.2016 has been arbitrarily rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 15.03.2017. The second appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected vide order dated 17.12.2018. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the sale deed and has argued that it is clearly mentioned in the sale deed that the land in question is free from all encumbrances and is not restricted from sale. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the Khasra entries and has argued that there is no mentioning of the land being restricted from sale in the revenue records. Considering the aforesaid, she has purchased the land in question but the learned Tahsildar only on the basis of the objections or application made by the respondent has cancelled the mutation order of the petitioner without there being any notice to the petitioner.

(3.) It is further submitted that the order of mutation was passed in the National Lok Adalat proceedings, therefore, the same can only be set aside by way of challenge being made to the order by filing a writ petition. He has placed reliance upon Section 22 of the Legal Services Authorities Act and also on the order of the Division Bench in the case of Shaheed Anwar v. Board of Revenue and another, 2000 RN 76. It is further argued that there is a limitation of 60 days prescribed under the MPLRC for challenging the order of mutation but without there being any application for condonation of delay and without noticing the petitioner the order of mutation has been set aside. He has further relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ranveer Singh and Ors v. State of M.P ., reported in 2010 (3) JLJ 77, whereby the Full Bench has clearly laid down that there is a limitation of 180 days for taking the order in suo motu revision. Even the aforesaid limitation period has expired then also the learned Tahsildar has entertained the application and has reviewed his own order. The order impugned is per se illegal and he has prayed for quashment of the impugned order.