MP HC Quashes Rejection Of Land Buyers’ Mutation Plea, Gives Naib Tehsildar 60 Days To Reconsider In Light Of Commissioner’s Order

The petitioners sought mutation of their names in the revenue records, relying on an order dated 22 August 2016 passed in their favour by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division.

They challenged the Naib Tahsildar’s order dated 10 January 2022 rejecting their mutation application.

The Naib Tahsildar had cited the need to revisit the original patta and the absence of Collector’s permission for the alienation.

The petitioners also sought disciplinary action against the Naib Tahsildar for not complying with the Additional Commissioner’s order.

The Court applied the principle that a subordinate revenue authority is obliged to comply with an order of a higher authority that has attained finality and cannot decline to give effect to it on the basis of a separate opinion or proposed challenge to the underlying transaction.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent.

The Additional Commissioner’s order dated 22 August 2016 directed mutation and had not been challenged; the Court therefore treated it as having attained finality.

The Naib Tahsildar, as a subordinate authority, was required to act consistently with that order.

The Court held that the Naib Tahsildar could not reject the application based on an opinion that the alienation should be questioned before the High Court, and characterised that approach as contumacious.

It consequently set aside the rejection but remitted the application for a decision guided by the 2016 order.

It directed the Naib Tahsildar to decide the petitioners’ mutation application in light of the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 22 August 2016, within 60 days of production of a certified copy of the High Court’s order.