-( 1 )- M.P. No.

142/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 142 of 2022

Between:-
VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI
ARJUNDAS RAWAL THROUGH
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI
LEKHRAJ RAWAL, AGE 70 YEARS
AROUND, OCCUPATION-BUSINESS,
R/O GARDAN PALACE, CITY CENTER,
GWALIOR (M.P.)

…. PETITIONER

(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. MANOJ ARORA S/O LATE SHRI

HEERALAL ARORA, R/O
JAMDARKHANA, MADHAVGANJ,
LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. SIMRAN ARORA W/O
KISHANLAL ARORA, R/O
MADHAVGANJ, LASHKAR, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MANOJ KUMAR S/O SHRI
MOHANLAL, AGE-61 YEARS AROUND,
OCCUPATION-BUSINESS, R/O-RATAN
COLONY, LASHKAR, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

….RESPONDENTS
 -( 2 )- M.P. No. 142/2022

(SHRI SANTOSH AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT

NO.1)

Reserved on : 08.03.2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting :

ORDER

(Passed on 25th March, 2022)

Present petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30/11/2021 passed

by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior in case No.91/2017-18

whereby Commissioner has reversed the order dated 30/04/2013

passed by Tehsildar and also the order dated 22/09/2017 passed by

SDO, Gwalior.

Brief facts relevant to decide this petition are that the

petitioner filed a civil suit before Second Civil Judge Class-II,

Gwalior and got a decree in his favour declaring himself the owner

of the land in dispute bearing survey no.828 total area 4 bigha 11

biswa. The petitioner filed an application under Sections 109, 110

of M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Tehsildar, Gwalior for

mutation and the Tehsildar has allowed the same. Thereafter being

aggrieved thereby, respondents preferred an appeal before the Sub-

Divisional Officer who dismissed the appeal. Against the order of

SDO, appeal was preferred by the respondents before Additional

 -( 3 )- M.P. No. 142/2022

Commissioner who allowed the appeal filed by the respondents by

the order impugned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

impugned order is prima facie illegal, arbitrary and not in

accordance with law as it is passed so mechanically without

appreciating the facts which need to be dealt with. Despite the

Civil Court has declared Bhumiswami rights in favour of the

petitioner, the Additional Commissioner has passed the order

defying the decree passed by Civil Court. Therefore, Appellate

Authority has committed grave error in understanding the trite law

which is already settled in the case of Bikobai Deora Gaikwad

and Others Vs. Hirabai Marutirao Ghorgare and Others

reported in 2008 (8) SCC 198 wherein it has been held that the

“Decree denotes the final adjudication between the parties is

binding between the parties.”

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents cited

the case law of Ramji & Others Vs. Board of Revenue &

Others 1998 Rajasw Nirman 240 and argued that the Revenue

Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of title. It is also

argued that the order impugned is in accordance with settled

principles of law and prays to dismiss the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

 -( 4 )- M.P. No. 142/2022

material available on record.

The material available on record reveals that a Civil Suit

No.6-A/83 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was decreed by

Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior in favour of

petitioner/plaintiff-Vijay Kumar declaring him Bhumiswami

over the land in dispute.

In view of the law laid down in the case of Bikobai

Deora Gaikwad (Supra) that “Decree denotes the final

adjudication between the parties is binding between the parties,”

the petitioner's rights have found to be finally adjudicated by the

Court of law.

In the case of Ambika Prasad Bakshi and another Vs.

Onkar Prasad Saini and Others [2003(5) MPLJ 298] it was

held that “the jurisdiction of Civil Court is superior to Revenue

Court and whatever is decided by the Civil Court is the final

decision and Tehsildar is bound to make a mutation on the

basis of the order of the Civil Court” and the same view is

adopted in the case of Rajeshwari Bhatt and Ors. Vs. State of

M.P. and Ors. WP No.416 of 2016 decided on 22/11/2017.

In view of the law laid down as above the order of

Tehsildar for mutation in favour of petitioner is found to be in

 -( 5 )- M.P. No. 142/2022

accordance with law and therefore the impugned order of

Additional Commissioner reversing the order of Tehsildar is

found to be contrary to the settled principles of law.

The facts and circumstances of the present case and the case

of Ramji & Others Vs. Board of Revenue & Others 1998

Rajasw Nirman 240 cited above are totally different. In that case,

there was no decree of Civil Court and the dispute was about the

alleged shame and bogus sale deed. Therefore, the respondents do

not get any benefit from the case cited by him.

Consequently, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed

and the order of Additional Commissioner dated 30/11/2021 is

hereby set aside.

(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE

Monika

MONIKA
SHARMA
2022.03.29
09:51:46 +05'30'