AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners have filed this review petition for review of the order dated 31.10.2017 passed in W.P. No.15190/2015. Smt. Jatan Bai and eight
other persons namely Hanuman Prasad, Jagdish Prasad, Shambhu Prasad, Smt. Suneeta, Balraj, Sandeep Thakur, Deepak and Deepika filed a
civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad for declaration of the entry in regard to lands comprising
Khasra Nos.24/93, 25/1 and 25/2 situate at village Barhanpura, Tehsil Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad recorded in the revenue record as null
and void. A further declaration was sought that the plaintiffs be declared bhoomiswamies and kastkars of the lands and the order passed by Sub-
divisional Officer, Seoni Malwa dated 30.08.1991 be declared null and void. The trial Court decreed the suit by passing a decree that the entry
mentioned in the revenue records in regard to lands bearing Khasra Nos. 24/93, 25/1 and 25/2 as fauzi padav as nonest and void and the plaintiffs
are the agriculturists of the lands and the order passed by Sub-divisional Officer dated 30.08.1991 is null and void. The defendants and the officers
of the State were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs.
Subsequently, the State of Madhya Pradesh through S.D.O. filed a fresh suit for declaring the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.55-
A/1991 null and void. Near about 22 persons were added as respondents. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction. The trial Court vide
order dated 26.10.2005 dismissed the suit as abated. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred by the State
Government, which was registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No.1/2008. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court vide order dated
23.01.2009. The State did not file any further proceeding against the aforesaid judgment and decree. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court in earlier Civil Suit No.55-A/1991 became final.
On the basis of aforesaid judgment and decree, subsequent purchasers filed applications before the Tehsildar for mutation of their names. They
pleaded that they had purchased the lands from earlier owners and their names be mutated as owners of the lands. Tehsildar, Seoni Malwa vide
order dated 18.07.2005 and 17.05.2006 in the case of Rakesh Kumar, Kishna Kumari, Shrikant, Poonamchand, Rajendra Kumar, Santosh
Kumar and Vinay Kumar passed order for mutation and ordered that the entry of fauzi padav be deleted. Same orders have been passed in the
cases of Rajendra Singh Patel on 28.10.2006 and Smt. Anju Thakur and Manish Kumar on 26.09.2006 in regard to same lands. Their names
were mutated as owners of the lands. The entry of fauzi padav was deleted. Certain orders were also passed by the revenue authorities in regard
to other persons.
Petitioners purchased the lands by registered sale deeds from different persons i.e. from Hanuman Prasad Thakur vide registered sale deed
dated 25.07.1992, from Jagdish Prasad Thakur vide registered sale deed dated 31.03.1992, another registered sale deed executed by Jagdish
Prasad Thakur dated 23.04.1992, another registered sale deed executed by Jagdish Prasad Thakur on 23.04.1992 and vide registered sale deed
executed by Shambhu Prasad dated 03.10.1992. Jagdish Prasad, Suneeta and Shambhu Prasad were the original plaintiffs, who filed Civil Suit
No.55-A/1991 for declaration. After purchase of the lands vide aforesaid sale deeds, the petitioners filed application before the Sub-divisional
Officer, Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad for recording their names as owners of the lands deleting the entry in revenue record of fauzi padav.
The application was dismissed vide order dated 07.06.2012 by the Sub-divisional Officer. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Upper
Collector, Hoshangabad; that was also dismissed on 19.06.2013. Another appeal filed before the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division,
Hoshangabad was also dismissed. Thereafter, Board of Revenue also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 09.07.2015. Authorities have held
that the petitioners did not approach the authority within 12 years of passing of the judgment and decree in original Civil Suit No.55-A/1991.
Hence, the application is not maintainable. They filed a writ petition before this Court. This Court dismissed the said petition.
One fact that is necessary to be mentioned that Union of India also filed a Civil Suit before the Court of First Additional District Judge,
Hoshangabad. It was registered as Civil Suit No.12-A/2012. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit, 18
persons were added as parties. It was pleaded in the civil suit that in the original suit instituted by the plaintiffs before the Civil Court i.e. Civil Suit
No.55-A/1991, the plaintiff/Union of India was not added as a party. Hence, the sale deeds executed by the persons who were plaintiffs in regard
to the lands are not binding on the Union of India. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 13.07.2015.
This Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the review petitioners on the ground that the application filed by the petitioners for mutation and
deleting the entry of fauzi padav was not maintainable because it was not filed within the period of limitation. Union of India was not a party to the
litigation.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioners has contended that there is error apparent on the face of record because
this Court has not considered the fact that the Union of India also filed a suit in regard to the same controversy and challenged the judgment and
decree passed by the Civil Court in the Civil Suit No.55-A/1991 and that suit was dismissed. Hence, there is no question of adding Union of India
as a party. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court declaring the entry of fauzi
padav as null and void has been acted upon by the revenue authorities and on the basis of the same, the revenue authorities passed mutation orders
in regard to number of persons. Hence, there was no question of filing execution by the petitioners for judgment and decree. The petitioners are
subsequent purchasers of the lands, which was of the ownership of the original plaintiffs. A right accrued in favour of the original plaintiffs, hence,
the review petitioners have a right of mutation.
Learned Government Advocate for the State has submitted that this Court has considered the facts in detail and passed proper order. There is
no question for reviewing that order because there is no error apparent on the face of record.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia vs State of Punjab and another, (2017) 8 SCC 518 has held as under in
regard to maintainability of a review petition:
Summarising the principles when review will be maintainable and review will not be maintainable, the following was held in paras 20.1 and 20.2
: (Kamlesh Verma vs Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320):
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:-
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii)Any other sufficient reason.
The words ""any other sufficient reason"" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this
Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean ""a reason
sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule"". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs.
Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., (2013) 8 SC 337.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in
the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.
It is a fact that Union of India also filed a civil suit before the Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad. It was registered as Civil Suit No.12-
A/2012 (Union of India vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others). The petitioner pleaded the aforesaid fact in para 5.20 and 5.21 of the writ
petition. Copy of the plaint and copy of the order passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing the suit have also been field as Annexure P/25
and Annexure P/26 alongwith the writ petition. In the aforesaid civil suit, a prayer was made that declaration be granted that the judgments and
decree passed by the Civil Courts dated 15.02.1993 in Civil Suit No.55-A/1991 and dated 26.10.2005 in Civil Suit No.44-A/1996 are not
binding on the plaintiff/Union of India and both the judgments and decree are void. The aforesaid suit was dismissed by the Additional District
Judge. Thereafter, no other proceeding was filed by the Union of India. Legal position of law is that the judgments and decree passed by the Civil
Court in Civil Suit No.55-A/1991 dated 15.02.1991 and in Civil Suit No.44-A/1996 dated 26.10.2005 are binding on the Union of India. Hence,
in my opinion, the findings recorded in the order under review that Union of India is not a party is not proper.
Next question is in regard to limitation. The petitioners purchased the lands from original plaintiffs namely Suneeta by registered sale deed
dated 25.07.1992, Jagdish by order dated 31.03.1992, 23.04.1992 and Shambhu Prasad by registered sale deed dated 03.10.1992. Since then
they are in possession on the lands. It is also a fact that on the basis of same judgment and decree, the revenue authorities ordered mutation in
favour of number of persons, who purchased the lands from the original plaintiffs as mentioned above in the order and the petitioners have filed the
orders of mutation in the writ petition. It means that the authorities have accepted the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court declaring the
entry of fauzi padav in the revenue record as null and void.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Bikoba Deora Gaikwad and others vs Hirabai Marutirao Ghorgare and others, (2008) 8 SCC 198
held that a decree donates final adjudication between the parties and the decree is binding between the parties. In the present case, in Civil Suit
No.55-A/1991, the Court passed a decree declaring the entry fauzi padav as null and void. The decree became final because appeal against the
aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed. The revenue authorities acted on the judgment and decree and on the basis of aforesaid judgment
and decree, passed mutation orders in regard to number of persons and those persons declared owners of the lands. It means that the judgment
and decree passed by the Civil Court is acted upon and the entry of fauzi padav is deleted. The petitioners are the subsequent purchasers of the
lands. They purchased the lands from the original plaintiffs, who filed Civil Suit No.55-A/1991, hence, they became owners of the said lands and
their applications for mutation could not be rejected by the authorities on the ground that the application was not filed within the period of limitation
under Article 136 of the Limitation Act because the decree was already acted upon in earlier proceedings. Hence, the findings recorded by the
revenue authorities are contrary to law. I find substance that the order under review is liable to be reviewed.
Consequently, the review petition filed by the review petitioners is allowed. The orders passed by the revenue authorities i.e. order dated
07.06.2012 passed by the Subdivisional Officer, order dated 19.06.2013 passed by the Upper Collector, order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the
Commissioner and the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue (i.e. Annexures P/27, P/28, P/29 and P/31 filed alongwith the
writ petition) are hereby quashed. The Sub-divisional Officer, Seoni Malwa is directed to pass an order of mutation in favour of the review
petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.