MP HC Sends Temple’s 2.4-Hectare Land-Mutation Dispute Back To Tehsildar For Fresh Decision On Land Status And Management

The petitioner challenged the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 7 January 2021, which set aside the Tehsildar’s order directing mutation and the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order dismissing the private respondents’ appeal

The petitioner claimed that land comprising Survey Nos. 176, 305 and 306 had been purchased for the Mandir by registered sale deed dated 6 June 1998, and that mutation had been sought in favour of Kalyan Singh, son of late Munshilal

The private respondents disputed the transaction and the petitioner’s authority to manage the Mandir; they also contended that the mutation had been sanctioned in favour of the deceased Munshilal

The High Court found that the nature and status of the land, the person in whose favour mutation was sought and sanctioned, and the authority to manage the land required examination

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The mutation proceedings arose under Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959

The Court directed that the Tehsildar determine the nature and status of the land by examining relevant revenue records, registered documents and other material; verify from the original proceedings who sought and obtained mutation; and consider management in accordance with the applicable law, including the authority of the Collector if the land is found to be Government land

The Court expressed no view on title or the validity of the transaction

The competing submissions raised unresolved factual questions, including whether mutation was sought and sanctioned in favour of Kalyan Singh or the deceased Munshilal, the status of the land, and the basis for the petitioner’s claimed management authority

The Court considered that these matters required examination of the original mutation proceedings and other relevant documents, together with an effective opportunity for both sides to be heard

It therefore set aside the Commissioner’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, without deciding the parties’ claims to title or the validity of the sale deed

It remanded the matter to the Tehsildar, Sironj, to examine the relevant records and documents, determine the land’s nature and status and the person in whose favour mutation was sought and sanctioned, consider the lawful management of the land, hear the parties, and issue a reasoned order in accordance with law

The Court clarified that its observations did not determine title or the validity of the transaction