Mutation proceedings need not notify a transferor who has parted with all rights under a sale deed.

The petitioners challenged the Collector’s order dated 23 January 2024 affirming the Sub-Divisional Officer’s dismissal, on limitation grounds, of their appeal against mutation of the private respondents’ names in Panchayat records.

The mutation was based on a sale deed dated 19 December 2003, allegedly executed by the petitioners’ father.

The petitioners contended that the deed was forged, that their father had not received notice of the mutation proceedings, and that their appeal was timely because they filed it within the prescribed period after learning of the mutation.

The State argued that the sale deed had not been challenged and that the appeal was filed after about 20 years without adequate explanation for the delay.

1. Whether the mutation proceedings were invalid for want of notice to the petitioners’ father or the petitioners.

2. Whether the petitioners’ appeal was properly dismissed as time-barred, notwithstanding their assertion that they acted within time after learning of the mutation.

3. Whether the Collector’s order affirming the dismissal of the appeal warranted interference under Article 226.

While the sale deed dated 19 December 2003 remained in existence and had not been challenged, mutation in favour of the purchasers named in that deed could not be treated as unlawful merely because of the objections raised in the mutation proceedings.

Where the executant had transferred his rights in the property under the deed, notice to him was not necessary in the subsequent mutation proceedings.

Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and the precedents cited by the petitioners were noted as part of their submissions, but the Court did not apply them to reach its decision and found the cited judgments inapplicable to the case.

The Court found that the mutation was based on a sale deed executed by the petitioners’ father and reasoned that, upon its execution, he had parted with his rights in the land; accordingly, the authorities were not required to issue him notice before recording the purchasers’ names.

Because the deed remained unchallenged, the Court held that the resulting mutation could not be considered unlawful.

It also rejected the claim that the appeal was timely from the date of knowledge: given that the father had executed the deed in 2003 and had not challenged it during his lifetime, the Court considered it reasonable to presume that the petitioners knew of its execution.

It therefore found no error in the Sub-Divisional Officer’s limitation decision or the Collector’s affirmance.

The writ petition was dismissed, and admission was declined.