MP HC Dismisses Land Buyer’s Mutation Challenge, Imposes ₹10,000 Costs For Concealing Earlier Rejection And Dismissed Appeal

The petitioner purchased agricultural land by registered sale deed dated 20 March 2020 and applied for mutation. The Tahsildar rejected her first application on 8 March 2021, citing a discrepancy between the stamp duty paid for un-irrigated land and the revenue record’s classification of the land as irrigated.

Her appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 27 January 2022 under Section 35(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Instead of seeking restoration of that appeal, she filed a second mutation application, which the Tahsildar rejected on 21 March 2023 as barred by res judicata; the SDO affirmed that decision on 9 July 2025.

In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the later orders but did not challenge or disclose the original rejection order and the dismissal of her first appeal.

Section 35(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was cited in connection with the dismissal of the petitioner’s first appeal for want of prosecution.

The Court applied the principle of res judicata to the repeated mutation application, holding that a second application on identical facts was not maintainable while the original rejection remained undisturbed.

It also applied the rule that a litigant seeking discretionary relief must disclose material facts and approach the court with clean hands. Relying on Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, (2013) 11 SCC 531; K. Jayaram v. BDA, (2022) 12 SCC 815; and Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120, the Court noted that suppression of material facts may justify refusal of discretionary relief, while the materiality of the suppressed fact depends on the circumstances of the case.

The original mutation rejection had not been set aside, and the petitioner had not pursued restoration of the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. The second application repeated the earlier claim and was filed without disclosing the relevant procedural history. The Court therefore accepted that the repeat application was barred by the principles of res judicata and found that the omission concerned material facts relevant to the writ petition.

Applying the clean-hands principles governing discretionary relief, it declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226.

It imposed costs of ₹10,000, payable to the specified account of the M.P. High Court Bar Association within ten working days.