Ranveer Singh And Ors. vs State Of MP & Ors

This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 25/01/2020 (Annexure P1) passed by

Additional Collector, District Gwalior in Case No.02/ Revision/2019-20, thereby setting aside the order dated 30/10/2019 passed by SDO, Bhitarwar,

District Gwalior in Case No.58/2019-20/Appeal as well as the order dated 12/02/2019 passed by Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Chinore, District Gwalior in

Case No.102/2018-19/A-6 and the Naib Tahsildar has been directed to mutate the name of the respondent No.5 also in the revenue records of the

land in dispute.

The undisputed facts are that the respondent No.5 and the petitioners are siblings. The petitioners filed an application for mutation of their names after

the death of their father and on the basis of the said application their names were mutated, but the name of the respondent No.5 was not disclosed and

hence it was not mutated. The order of the Naib Tahsildar was challenged by the respondent No.5 in an appeal before the SDO, Bhitarwar, District

Gwalior, which too was dismissed by order dated 30/10/2019 passed in Case No.58/2019-20/Appeal.

Thereafter, the respondent No.5 filed a revision before the Court of Additional Collector, District Gwalior which was registered as Case

No.02/Revision/2019-20. By order dated 25/01/2020, the Additional Collector set aside the order passed by the Tribunals below and directed for

mutation of the name of the respondent No.5 also as she is having 1/6th share in the property.

Challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that after the dismissal of appeal, the

respondent No.5 has filed a civil suit for declaration of title which is still pending and at the same time, she also filed a revision before the Additional

Collector by suppressing the fact of filing a civil suit and the Additional Collector, by the impugned order has, in fact, dealt with the merits of the case

ignoring the fact that the respondent No.5 had also filed a civil suit on 11/11/2019.

Considered the submission made by counsel for the petitioners. From the plaint, it appears that the suit was filed on 11/11/2019

for declaration that the order passed by Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Chinnore, District Gwalior as well as the order passed by the SDO, Bhitarwar, District

Gwalior are bad in law and are liable to be set aside and it be declared that the respondent No.5 is having 1/6th share in the property.

Undisputedly, against the order passed by the SDO, Bhitarwar, District Gwalior, the respondent No.5 also had a statutory remedy of filing a revision.

As per provision of Section 257 of MP Land Revenue Code, No civil court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or

order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of,

and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no Civil Court shall exercise the jurisdiction over any of the matters

mentioned in Section 257 of MP Land Revenue Code.

Although the Supreme Court in the case of Dhulabai vs. State of MP and Another, reported in AIR 1969 SC 78 has held that where the statute gives

a finality to the orders of the special tribunals, the civil courts' jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil

court would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been

complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Thus, the respondent No.5

also had a statutory remedy of filing a revision against the order passed by the SDO, Bhitarwar, District Gwalior.

Furthermore, the facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondent No.5 is the sibling of the petitioners and is having equal share in the property in

dispute as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Others by judgment dated 11th August, 2020 passed in

Civil Appeal No.... Diary No 32601 of 2018.

In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the counsel for the petitioners has also admitted that the respondent No.5 has equal share in the property. So far

as the solitary contention that during the pendency of the civil suit, the Additional Collector, District Gwalior should not have entertained the revision is

concerned, in absence of any prejudice to the petitioners, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Additional Collector did not commit any

mistake by holding that respondent No.5 has 1/6th share in the property in dispute and is entitled to get her name mutated in the revenue records along

with the petitioners.

As no jurisdictional error could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners, accordingly, this miscellaneous petition fails and is hereby dismissed.