MP HC Quashes Buyer-Favouring Mutation Order, Remands Dispute And Reiterates Specific Land Portions Await Partition

The petitioner challenged the Naib Tehsildar’s order dated 11 July 2024, which allowed mutation in favour of respondent No. 4, Vikas Sharma, on the basis of a sale deed dated 10 December 2021.

The land was jointly held and had not been partitioned.

In an earlier order dated 8 December 2023 in M.P. No. 5677 of 2023, the High Court had clarified that the purchaser could not claim rights over a specific portion before partition and directed that the parties’ names be recorded according to their respective entitlements.

The petitioner contended that the impugned order failed to give effect to that direction and to address her objections concerning the parties’ shares and specific survey numbers.

The State maintained that the petitioner had been heard and that the order implemented the earlier decision.

Article 226 of the Constitution was the basis for the writ petition.

The Court applied its earlier order in M.P. No. 5677 of 2023, which clarified that a purchaser under a sale deed could not claim a right over a specific portion of jointly held land before partition, and that revenue entries were to reflect the parties’ respective entitlements.

The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was invoked by the State, but the judgment identifies no specific provision of the Code as the basis for its decision.

The Court required the revenue authority to act consistently with the earlier directions and applicable law, hear the concerned parties, and issue a reasoned order.

The Court concluded that the earlier order’s restoration of the mutation order did not relieve the revenue authority of its obligation to follow the accompanying clarification concerning specific portions and partition.

Because the petitioner’s objections and the parties’ respective entitlements required consideration in light of the pending partition proceedings, the impugned order warranted fresh consideration.

The Court therefore remitted the matter rather than determining the parties’ substantive rights itself.

The authority was directed to consider the parties’ respective entitlements and scrupulously follow the High Court’s order dated 8 December 2023.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the parties’ rival claims.