BEGUM SURAIY RASHID AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 20-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

, , 
BEGUM SURAIY A RASHID AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 20, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.) 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959-Sections 109, 116, 117-
Land recorded in name of jail department given on lease-Lessee applying for 
A 
B 
its mutation based on a decree in a suit, and in response to challenge to grant C 
of mutation, pleading res-judicata-He/d: As the land involved in the suit had 
different location and area from the impugned land, challenge to grant of 
mutation could not be defeated by plea of res-judicata-Mutation could not 
be granted as lessee had accepted that the land belonged to the jail department 
and did not challenge entry in revenue records in the name of latter-Otherwise 
also, application for mutation made after decades of passing of decree in the D 
Suit, was abuse of process of law as such application was to be made within 
sir months from date of lawful acquisition of rights. 
-> 
The impugned land measuring 59.17 acres in Khasra Nos. 943, 960, 
961 and 962 was recorded in the name of jail department since the year 
1935. It was given on lease to predecessors of appellants. However, in the E 
year 1989, relying on a decree of Jagir Commissioner dated 2-3-1954 in a 
suit filed by them, they filed an applicatioi, for mutation of this land before 
the Naib Tahsildar under Section 109 of the Madhya Pradesh Revenue 
Code, 1959. This application was allowed on 29-1-1990. But in an enquiry 
ordered by Collector of the area, the Naib Tahsildar was held guilty of F 
improper mutation. Thereafter Appellant authority set aside order of 
mutation. Against this, in a revision preferred by appellants before Board 
of Revenue under Section 50 of the Code, an enquiry was ordered and 
report asked for. However, High Court set aside this order. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Aside from the above, in proceedings initiated in 1981 under Section 
248 of the Code, for eviction of the appellants from the impugned lands, 
G 
\ 
they were declared trespassers. Order o~heir eviction passed by the 
-I, ' 
Tahsildar on 16-9-1981 was confirmed by SDO, thereafter by 
379 
H 
t 
380 
SUPRE\fE COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A Commissioner in second a1ppeal and subsequently by Government, 
whereby it attained finality. 
v-, 
Appellants contended that the present proceedings revolve around 
decree of Jagir Commissioner dated 2-3-1954 and were barred by principle 
of res-judicata., especially as that decree had been affirmed by High Court 
B and Supreme Court. RespoTitdent Government contended that the decree 
of the Jagir Commissioner did not include the area of the land in the 
present dispute. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: 1. From the order of the Jagir Commissioner it is clear that 
the land involved in that earlier suit was in Khasara Nos. 72/1, 73, 74, 75 
and 76 in village Dharampuri and the area of land is 7.26 acres. 
Undisputedly, the land involved in the present dispute relates to Khasra 
Nos. 943, 960, 961 and 962 of Jahangirabad area of Bhopal city measuring 
D 59.17 acres. While it is true that tin issue No. 9 in the said suit reference 
was made to the order passed by the Jagir Commissioner on 2-3-1954 
which was decided was not covered by the Jagir Commissioner's order 
dated 2-3-1954. The land in the present dispute is distinctly different from 
).. 
the point of view of the location of the land and Khasra Nos. from the 
•· 
subject matter of earlier suit. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it 
E can be said that the present dispute is hit by the principle of res-judicata 
in view of the decision rendered in Civil Suit No. 180-A/84, whic_h has 
attained finality. [384-C-F) 
Dhanvanthakumariba v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 8 SCC 121, Mahi/a 
F Bajrangi v. Badribai, (2003) 2 SCC 464 and Phool Pata v. Vishwanath Singh, 
(2005) AIR 3575, held inapplicable. 
G 
2.1. It is clear that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of 
jail department since from 1935 till 1989, when for the first time the 
appellants filed an application for mutation. (383-F) 
2.2. The appellants accepted that the land belonged to the jail 
department and they were only the lessees paying rent of Rs. 375 to the 
jail department. In alJ the correspondence not even a reference was made 
to the order dated 2.3.1954 passed by the Jagir Commissioner. (386-H) 
H 
2.3. If the appellants were aggrieved by the entry of the Khasra Nos. 
• 
I 
) 
BEGUM SURAIYA RASHID"· STATE OF MA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.