Manohar vs Kalli

S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 31-10-2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Board of Revenue; order dated 31-05-2001 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena and order dated 22-11-2000 (Annexure P-3) passed by Collector, District Sheopur.

The petitioner submitted an application before the Tahsildar under Sections 169, 190, 109 and 110 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 [hereinafter referred to as "Code"] mentioning the fact that respondent Kalli, who died during pendency of the petition, has taken Rs. 5,000/- from him and he was put in possession over the land. In accordance with oral agreement, she had given him right of "Bhoomiswami" over the land. He further prayed that his name be mutated as "Bhoomiswami" over the land. Thereafter, the Tahsildar passed an order of mutation in favour of the petitioner u/s 110 of the Code. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by the respondent before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Simultaneously, the Collector had also taken the matter in suo motu revision and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, that has been dismissed. Thereafter, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue, that has also been dismissed. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the Tahsildar passed an order of mutation in favour of the petitioner on the ground that respondent (deceased) Kalli had given him the land because she has taken Rs. 5,000/- from him and being in possession over the land for the last three years, the petitioner had right for mutation. In my opinion, the order passed by the Tahsildar in exercise of power u/s 110 of the Code was abuse of power, because as per Section 110 of the Code, the authority has no power or authority to order mutation of any person only on the basis of oral agreement and the fact that no " Bhoomiswami" rights were conferred on the person. Hence, the Collector has rightly taken the matter in suo motu revision and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. The Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue have again appreciated the evidence and upheld the order passed by the Collector. There is no illegality in the orders impugned. Since the proceedings initiated by the petitioner are frivolous in nature, hence, this writ petition is dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).