Padam Kumar Bhatt vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67535
1 WP-11264-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
nd
ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11264 of 2026
PADAM KUMAR BHATT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shobhitaditya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijayendra Singh Choudhary - Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated
23-02-2026 (Annexure-P/9) passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Bhopal Division, Bhopal, whereby the order of mutation passed by the
Additional Tehsildar, Tehsil Kolar, District Bhopal, dated 6.12.2024
(Annexure P-6) has been upheld.
2. The contention advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that
the Tehsildar was precluded from passing an order of mutation,
inasmuch as an interim order passed by this Court in S.A. No. 1233 of
2016, 15-02-2018, was in force. It is submitted that, if the aforesaid
interim order dated 15.02.2018 passed by this Court in S.A. No. 1233 of
2016 was operative, no mutation could have been effected in favour of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 07-09-2026
18:00:18

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67535
2 WP-11264-2026
the private respondents No.5 and 6. It is further contended that the

approach adopted by the Tehsildar in the present case was contumacious
and demonstrated a highly obstinate and high-handed conduct. The
Tehsildar, in the present case, proceeded to pass the order of mutation
dated 6.12.2024, contained in Annexure-P/6, in favour of the private
respondents. The said order has been passed on the basis of the sale deed
contained in Annexure- P/5.
3. The private respondents No.5 and 6 had also approached this
Court by filing a petition, wherein the present petitioner was not
impleaded as a party. The said writ petition was registered as W.P. No.
4705 of 2020 and was finally decided vide order dated 26-09-2023. A
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed registration of the sale deed in
favour of the respondents No.5 and 6. Upon coming to know of the
aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a review petition, which was
registered as R.P. No. 778 of 2024. The said review petition was
disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and, without
recalling the earlier order, an observation was made to the effect that the
order directing registration of the sale deed would not come in the way
of the review petitioner in the pending litigation. Thereafter, the
petitioner also preferred a writ appeal. The said writ appeal was
dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 05-08-2026 passed in
W.A. No. 2754 of 2024. It is, therefore, contended by the counsel that,
when the civil litigation was already pending and the interim order was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 07-09-2026
18:00:18

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67535
3 WP-11264-2026
in operation, there was no occasion for the Tehsildar to pass any order of

mutation in favour of the private respondents.
4. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the
present petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the
Tehsildar and, therefore, the principles of natural justice were flagrantly
violated in the present case. It is also submitted that one of the vendors to
the sale deed, namely Jairam, had already expired and, consequently, the
sale deed was a nullity. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil - Kolar, District Bhopal, set aside the
order dated 6.12.2024 passed by the Tehsildar in appeal and remanded
the matter vide order dated 09.4.2025 (Annexure-P/8). However, the
aforesaid well-reasoned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer has
been reversed by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order. It
is, therefore, contended that, since the orders passed by the revenue
authorities are contrary to the interim protection granted by this Court in
S.A. No. 1233 of 2016, the said orders be set aside being non est.
5. Per contra, the counsel for the State submits that the private
respondents had approached this Court by filing W.P. No.4705/2020,
wherein this Court issued a specific direction to the official respondents
therein to execute the sale deed in favour of the private respondents.
Consequently, in compliance with the order passed by this Court, the
sale deed was executed in favour of the private respondents, which is
contained in Annexure- P/5. As a necessary corollary thereof, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 07-09-2026
18:00:18

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67535
4 WP-11264-2026
Additional Tehsildar, Kolar, also passed an order of mutation, which is

contained in Annexure-P/6.
6. The petitioner did not raise any objection, at any point of time,
with regard to the mutation in favour of the private respondents. It is
undisputed that the petitioner himself assailed the order dated 26-09-
2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.4705 of 2020, by
preferring a writ appeal, which also came to be dismissed. Even before
the Division Bench, the issue regarding the subsistence of the
interlocutory order passed in the Second Appeal was under
consideration. The Division Bench considered the aforesaid aspect in
paragraph 10 of its order and ultimately dismissed the writ appeal.
Further, in paragraph 14 of the said order, the Division Bench observed
that the petitioner, having sought to enforce his right on the basis of an
agreement of sale, was precluded from objecting to the registration of the
sale deed. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the
Division Bench, and since the order of mutation is merely consequential
in nature, no interference with the same is warranted.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties, it is evident from a perusal of the record that a sale deed has
been executed in favour of private respondent Nos.5 and 6. The said sale
deed has been executed pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in
W.P. No.4705 of 2020. The aforesaid direction issued by this Court has
also been affirmed by the Division Bench, inasmuch as the appeal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 07-09-2026
18:00:18

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67535
5 WP-11264-2026
preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed vide

order dated 05-08-2026 passed in W.A. No.2754 of 2024. The Division
Bench, in unequivocal terms, has observed in paragraph 14 as under:
"14. This writ appeal has been filed against an
order passed by the learned writ court whereby the
writ court allowed the writ petition and directed the
respondents/authorities to register the sale deed
with effect from 25.1.2018 and hand over the
registered sale deed to the writ petitioners.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a review petition on
the ground that litigation has been pending between
the review petitioner and the vendors of the writ
petitioners; therefore, such a sale deed is not liable
to be registered. However, the review petition has
been dismissed by the writ court, observing that if
ultimately pending litigation goes in favour of the
review petitioner (present appellant), then the
competent court can declare the sale deed as void.
Therefore, the right of the appellant has already
been protected by the writ court. The said order is
not liable to be challenged on merits by the
appellant. The entire case is based on the agreement
of sale dated 01.6.1994 and compromise entered
into with Ramratan and Sadaram in Civil Suit
No.331-A/2005. Since the said compromise was not
fulfilled, the appellant had filed Civil Suit
No.1026/2013 on 19.9.2013 for specific
performance and possession. The said suit was
dismissed by judgment and decree dated 13.1.2015.
Thereafter, First Appeal No.79-A/2015 was
dismissed, against which Second Appeal
No.1233/2016 was filed, which was admitted on
15.2.2018. As per the learned counsel for the
respondents, the sale deed has already been
registered and handed over to the writ petitioner.
Therefore, the appellant, who is trying to enforce
the right by way of agreement to sale, cannot object
to the registration of the sale deed." (Emphasis
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 07-09-2026
18:00:18

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67535
6 WP-11264-2026
supplied)


8. The aforesaid findings of the Division Bench, leave no iota of
confusion that, a stamp of approval has been given by the Division
Bench to the registration of sale deed which was made in favor of the
respondent Nos.5 and 6. An order of mutation being consequential to
the registration of sale deed, cannot be gone into on the ground that in
the currency of the interlocutory order in the S.A. No. 1233 of 2016,
there could not have been any mutation. The order of status quo was not
with regard to mutation, as mutation was an offshoot of the sale-deed
executed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.4705
of 2020.
9. Even otherwise, this aspect has also been taken note of by the
Division Bench while dismissing the writ appeal, as observed in
paragraph 10 of the said order.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find
any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same stands
dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
ac

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 07-09-2026
18:00:18