Smt. Sharad Kumari JaIn Vs. Board of Revenue - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1089714
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnSep-25-2013
AppellantSmt. Sharad Kumari Jain
RespondentBoard of Revenue
Excerpt:
1 w.p.no.21465/2012. 25.9.2013. shri sunil vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioners.smt. sheetal dubey, learned g.a.for respondent no.1 to 4. none for respondent no.5 to 7 and 12 to 19. shri rakesh jain, learned counsel for respondent no.8 to 11. heard on ia no.13125/13, petitioners.application for taking annexed documents on record. the same appears to be relevant with the matter. hence, by allowing the ia, same are taken on record. also heard on the question of admission. the petitioners have filed this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2012 (ann. p.7).passed by the respondent no.1/ board of revenue in revenue revision no.2980/2/2012, whereby dismissing the revision of the present petitioners the order dated 31.8.2011 passed by the collector, district sagar in revenue case no.9/a- 6(a)/2011-12, directing some correction and modification in the revenue record of survey number stated in the annexure p-1, has been affirmed. the petitioners.counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition along with the impugned order as well as the papers placed on record argued that the present petitioners have acquired the title with respect of the disputed land from its earlier bhoomiswami respondent no.5 to 7 through registered sale deed dated 22.12.2007 and 4.4.2008, subsequent to such sale deeds their name was also mutated in the revenue record and after such mutation over the land on account of some earlier orders.directions passed by the revenue 2 authorities regarding correction and modification in the revenue record, the collector by the impugned order has directed to modify and correct the revenue record as it was earlier. in continuation he said, that on challenging such order of the collector before the board of revenue, the same has been affirmed by dismissing the revision of the petitioners.he further said that he has purchased the land after examining the revenue records in which the name of respondent no.5 to 7 was recorded as bhoomiswami, so after acquisition of the title by the petitioners there was not occasion with the collector to pass such order contrary to the interest of the petitioners.he further said that whatsoever proceeding carried out between ghasiti bai and mankunwar bai, in the present circumstances are not binding against the petitioners.in such premises, the order of the board of revenue as well as of the collector are not sustainable. he also pointed out that with respect of the title regarding disputed land at the instance of the respondent no.8 to11 a civil suit is pending before the competent civil court, in which the present petitioners have also filed the counter claims for declaring their title over the disputed property. so, till pendency of civil suit in order to protect the interest of the petitioners some interlocutory injunction not to score out the name of the petitioners from the revenue record in compliance of the impugned order be granted against the revenue authorities. on asking the petitioner's counsel whether he has filed any interlocutory injunction or other application in the impugned suit before the civil court for passing any appropriate order till deciding his counter claim, on which he fairly submits that no such application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in such court. with these 3 submission he prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the revenue authorities by admitting and allowing this petition. on the other hand shri rakesh jain, learned counsel of the respondent no.8 to 11 by justifying the impugned order of the collector as well as the board of revenue said that the same being passed in the available factual matrix and taking into consideration the earlier orders of the revenue sector are in conformity with law, do not require any interference in this petition filed under section 226 or 227 of the constitution of india. he further said that if any mistake in the revenue record taken place before the execution of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners by mankunwar bai and others then mere on the basis of execution of the sale deed, the petitioners have no independent authority to make such prayer, if such earlier order is binding against mankunwar bai then the same is binding against the present petitioners also. so, in such premises the collector as well as the board of revenue have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders on the basis of some earlier orders of the revenue authorities and in such premises, no irregularity, illegality or anything against the propriety of law has been committed by the collector as well as by the board of revenue in passing the order impugned and prayed for dismissal of this petition. having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments, i have care fully gone through the papers placed on record along with the impugned orders.in the impugned annexure p-7, it is categorically stated that collector has passed the impugned order under revision on the basis of some earlier orders of the sdo and 4 other revenue authorities, which had got finality between the then parties, as the same have not been challenged either by mankunwar bai or the present petitioners.in such premises, the impugned order does not appear to be pervers.or contrary to the record and do not require any interference at this stage. for the sake of argument if the matter is examined with some other angles then it is apparent that earlier order was passed in the proceedings carried out between ghasiti bai and mankunwar bai and the parties are bound by such orders till the same are set aside by the competent authority or the civil court. in such premises, the petitioners being successor of title of the mankunwar bai in respect of the property in dispute are also bound by such order till the same are set aside by the superior revenue authority or the civil court. in such premises, the petitioners have no right to keep the revenue record as it is, according to which at the place mankunwar bai the name of the petitioners was recorded, if there is any order of revenue authority to score out the name of mankunwar bai by placing the name of respondent no.8 to 11 then the petitioners did not have any authority to challenge the impugned order by way of this writ petition. consequently, this petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. however, it is observed that dismissal of this petition does not mean that the right of the petitioners or mankunwar bai has been finally decided by this court because the disputed question of title regarding property is still pending for adjudication before the civil court and same shall be considered and decided by such court in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law so also without influencing from any observation or 5 findings given by the collector, board of revenue in the order impugned or by this court in the present order. it is further observed that the parties shall be at liberty to take appropriate plea in the civil suit to protect their interest and they shall be at liberty to file appropriate application before such court for issuing appropriate direction with respect of the entries of the revenue record and on filing such application before the civil court, the same shall be considered and decided by such court in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. petition is dismissed with aforesaid observation, direction and liberty. (u.c.maheshwari) judge k
Judgment:

1 W.P.No.21465/2012.

25.9.2013.

Shri Sunil Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Smt.

Sheetal Dubey, learned G.A.for respondent No.1 to 4.

None for respondent No.5 to 7 and 12 to 19.

Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.8 to 11.

Heard on IA No.13125/13, petitioneRs.application for taking annexed documents on record.

The same appears to be relevant with the matter.

Hence, by allowing the IA, same are taken on record.

Also heard on the question of admission.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2012 (Ann.

P.7).passed by the respondent No.1/ Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision No.2980/2/2012, whereby dismissing the revision of the present petitioners the order dated 31.8.2011 passed by the Collector, District Sagar in Revenue Case No.9/A- 6(A)/2011-12, directing some correction and modification in the revenue record of survey number stated in the Annexure P-1, has been affirmed.

The petitioneRs.counsel after taking me through the averments of the petition along with the impugned order as well as the papers placed on record argued that the present petitioners have acquired the title with respect of the disputed land from its earlier Bhoomiswami respondent No.5 to 7 through registered sale deed dated 22.12.2007 and 4.4.2008, subsequent to such sale deeds their name was also mutated in the revenue record and after such mutation over the land on account of some earlier ordeRs.directions passed by the revenue 2 authorities regarding correction and modification in the revenue record, the Collector by the impugned order has directed to modify and correct the revenue record as it was earlier.

In continuation he said, that on challenging such order of the Collector before the Board of Revenue, the same has been affirmed by dismissing the revision of the petitioneRs.He further said that he has purchased the land after examining the revenue records in which the name of respondent No.5 to 7 was recorded as Bhoomiswami, so after acquisition of the title by the petitioners there was not occasion with the Collector to pass such order contrary to the interest of the petitioneRs.He further said that whatsoever proceeding carried out between Ghasiti Bai and Mankunwar Bai, in the present circumstances are not binding against the petitioneRs.In such premises, the order of the Board of Revenue as well as of the Collector are not sustainable.

He also pointed out that with respect of the title regarding disputed land at the instance of the respondent No.8 to11 a civil suit is pending before the competent Civil Court, in which the present petitioners have also filed the counter claims for declaring their title over the disputed property.

So, till pendency of Civil Suit in order to protect the interest of the petitioners some interlocutory injunction not to score out the name of the petitioners from the revenue record in compliance of the impugned order be granted against the revenue authorities.

On asking the petitioner's counsel whether he has filed any interlocutory injunction or other application in the impugned suit before the Civil Court for passing any appropriate order till deciding his counter claim, on which he fairly submits that no such application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in such Court.

With these 3 submission he prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the revenue authorities by admitting and allowing this petition.

On the other hand Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel of the respondent No.8 to 11 by justifying the impugned order of the Collector as well as the Board of Revenue said that the same being passed in the available factual matrix and taking into consideration the earlier orders of the revenue sector are in conformity with law, do not require any interference in this petition filed under Section 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.

He further said that if any mistake in the revenue record taken place before the execution of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners by Mankunwar Bai and others then mere on the basis of execution of the sale deed, the petitioners have no independent authority to make such prayer, if such earlier order is binding against Mankunwar Bai then the same is binding against the present petitioners also.

So, in such premises the Collector as well as the Board of Revenue have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders on the basis of some earlier orders of the revenue authorities and in such premises, no irregularity, illegality or anything against the propriety of law has been committed by the Collector as well as by the Board of Revenue in passing the order impugned and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments, I have care fully gone through the papers placed on record along with the impugned ordeRs.In the impugned Annexure P-7, it is categorically stated that Collector has passed the impugned order under revision on the basis of some earlier orders of the SDO and 4 other revenue authorities, which had got finality between the then parties, as the same have not been challenged either by Mankunwar Bai or the present petitioneRs.In such premises, the impugned order does not appear to be perveRs.or contrary to the record and do not require any interference at this stage.

For the sake of argument if the matter is examined with some other angles then it is apparent that earlier order was passed in the proceedings carried out between Ghasiti Bai and Mankunwar Bai and the parties are bound by such orders till the same are set aside by the competent authority or the Civil Court.

In such premises, the petitioners being successor of title of the Mankunwar Bai in respect of the property in dispute are also bound by such order till the same are set aside by the superior revenue authority or the Civil Court.

In such premises, the petitioners have no right to keep the revenue record as it is, according to which at the place Mankunwar Bai the name of the petitioners was recorded, if there is any order of revenue authority to score out the name of Mankunwar Bai by placing the name of respondent No.8 to 11 then the petitioners did not have any authority to challenge the impugned order by way of this writ petition.

Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

However, it is observed that dismissal of this petition does not mean that the right of the petitioners or Mankunwar Bai has been finally decided by this court because the disputed question of title regarding property is still pending for adjudication before the Civil Court and same shall be considered and decided by such Court in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law so also without influencing from any observation or 5 findings given by the Collector, Board of Revenue in the order impugned or by this Court in the present Order.

It is further observed that the parties shall be at liberty to take appropriate plea in the civil suit to protect their interest and they shall be at liberty to file appropriate application before such Court for issuing appropriate direction with respect of the entries of the revenue record and on filing such application before the Civil Court, the same shall be considered and decided by such Court in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law.

Petition is dismissed with aforesaid observation, direction and liberty.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge k