W.P. No.5182.06 Writ Petition No. 5182 of 2006 (Sunderbai and two others v. BatiBai and another) 22/11/2011 Shri R. P. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners. None for the respondent though represented. Order dated 23-12-2005 passed by Board of Revenue is under challenge. By impugned order Revision Petitions, viz., R 539-PBR/2005 and R 540-PBR/2005 directed against the Appellate Order dated 17-02-2005 passed by Addl. Commissioner, Bhopal/Hoshangabad Division, in Appeal No. 267/Appeal/2003-04 and No.268/Appeal/2003-04, have been allowed; which in turn led to setting aside of orders dated 27-02-2003 and 10-02-2004 passed by Tahsildar and Sub- Divisional Officer, rejecting the application for mutation filed by respondent; with a further direction to the Tahsildar to pass suitable orders on merit after affording an opportunity of hearing. Facts briefly are that, one Punna Chamar owned land bearing survey No. 55, 102, 82, 91, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212 total area 18.44 acres situated at village Dhanora, tahsil and district Raisen. He died in or about 1955-56. In 1961 name of his widow Sunderbai (petitioner No. 1) was recorded as Bhumiswami. BatiBai (respondent No. 1) is Sunderbai's daughter out of wedlock with Punna. W.P. No.5182.06 Sunderbai after the death of Punna remarried Tikaram from whom is born Phool Singh (petitioner No. 2). On 02-05-1973, vide registered settlement deed the entire holding of 18 acres land was settled amongst Sunderbai, BatiBai and Phool Singh; whereunder BatiBai got 8.02 acres, Phool Singh got 8.16 acres and remaining 2.26 acres was settled in Sunderbai's name. Land settled in favour of BatiBai (respondent No. 1) got mutated and was renumbered as Kh. No. 205 and 82. BatiBai, having settled over the land partitioned in her name later on sold some part vide registered sale deed dated 12-05-1997, 13-06-2001 and 04-02-2003. Sometime in 2002-03, Shyamabai wife of Phool Singh filed an application before Tahsildar for recording her as bhumiswami of land admeasuring 2.26 acres bearing khasra No. 204 which was in the name of Sunderbai, on the basis of being in occupation. Tahsildar by order dated 27-02-2003 mutated the land khasra No. 204 area 2.26 acres in the name of Shyamabai. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed two appeals, one against the mutation of 1955-56, 1961 and the other against the order dated 27-02-2003. Appellate Authority vide order dated 10-02-2004 set aside the order passed on 27-02-2003 and by order dated 26-02-2004, the order dated 27-07-1961 was set aside. The Appellate Authority remitted the matter to Tahsildar for fresh trial after affording opportunity of hearing to each affected person. In an Appeal, the Additional Commissioner, by order dated W.P. No.5182.06 17-02-2004 set aside the order by Sub-Divisional Officer. However, in a Revision the Board of Revenue reversed the order in Second Appeal by impugned order and maintained the order by Sub-Divisional Officer. The Board of Revenue set aside the order passed by Additional Commissioner for the following reasons : “(v) izdj.k esa e`rd Hkwfe&Lokeh iqUuk dh e`R;q mijkar o"kZ 1955&56 esa ukekarj.k dh dk;Zokgh izkjaHk dh xbZ Fkh] blls ;g Li"V gS fd iqUuk dh e`R;q o"kZ 1956 ds iwoZ gqbZ gSA ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk;s fd e`R;q ds le; vkosfndk dk tUe ugha gqvk Fkk] rc Hkh 27&7&1961 fd;s x;s ukekUrj.k ds le; vkosfndk dk tUe gks pqdk Fkk vkSj og e`r iqUuk dh okfjl Fkh] ijUrq vkns'k esa e`rd iqUuk dk dksbZ vkSykn u gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr rglhy U;k;ky; }kjk bl fcUnq ij Hkh fopkj ugha fd;k x;k ukekarj.k dh dk;Zokgh ds iwoZ lqUnj ckbZ dk iqufoZokg gqvk Fkk vFkok ugha vkSj ;fn gks x;k Fkk rks D;k mls okfjlkuk gd izkIr Fkk vFkok ughaA bl izdkj rglhy U;k;ky; }kjk ukekUrj.k djus esa ?kksj vfu;ferrk dh xbZ gSA ¼c½ rglhy U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 15&10&75 dks O;oLFkk i= ds vk/kkj ij ukekUrj.k djrs le; vkosfndk dks lwpuk fn;k tkuk vfHkys[k ls ifjyf{kr ugha gksrk gS] vkSj u gh O;oLFkk i= esa vkosfndk dh lgefr gksuk izrhr gksrk gSA ¼l½ rglhy U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 27&2&2003 dks losZ Øekad 204 jdok 2-26 ,dM+ Hkwfe ij lgefr ds vk/kkj ij ukekUrj.k djus ds iwoZ vkosfndk dks dksbZ lwpuk ugha nh xbZ gS tcfd iz'uk/khu Hkwfe iSr`d Fkh vkSj vkosfndk vko';d i{kdkj FkhA vr% mls lwpuk fn;k tkuk vko';d FkkA ¼n½ vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k Øekad 48@vihy@2002&03 esa fnukad 26&2&2004 dks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkdj ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyrs gq, fd fnukad 27&7&1961 dks ;fn vkns'k ikfjr djrs le; iqUuk ds okfjlkuksa esa vkosfndk dk uke Hkh vukosfndk ds lkFk ntZ fd;k tkrk rks orZeku esa fookn dh fLFkfr mRiUu ugha gksrhA rglhy U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27&7&1961 dks fujLr djrs gq, crhckbZ dk uke Hkh okfjlku ds :i esa lqUnj ckbZ ds uke ds lkFk ntZ djus esa oS/kkfud =qfV dh xbZ gS] D;ksafd tc vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh }kjk fcUnq fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, 1961 W.P. No.5182.06 ds i'pkr dh dk;Zokfg;ksa dk iqufoZyksdu dj vkns'k ikfjr djus gsrq izdj.k izR;kofrZr fd;k x;k Fkk rc mUgsa rglhy U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 27&7&1961 dks Hkh fujLr u dj mldk iqufoZyksdu fd;s tkus gsrq izdj.k izR;kofrZr fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA ¼b½ vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k Øekad 49@vihy@2002&03 esa fnukad 10&2&2004 dks vkns'k ikfjr dj rglhy U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27&2&2003 dks fujLr dj izdj.k esa vkosfndk dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj fn;k tkdj fujkdj.k djus gsrq izR;kofrZr fd;k x;k gS] tks fd vkSfpR;iw.kZ ugha gS D;ksafd rglhy U;k;ky; }kjk tc 1961 ds i'pkr ds dk;Zokfg;ksa dk iqufoZyksdu fd;k tkosxk rc izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuqlkj rglhy U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dk fujkdj.k Hkh Lor% gksxkA ¼bZ½ tgka rd vij vk;qDr }kjk izdj.k Øekad 268@vihy@2003&04 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17&2&2005 dk iz'u gS tc vij vk;qDr }kjk ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k Fkk ;fn iqUuk dh e`R;q ds lkFk lqUnj ckbZ dk uke ntZ Hkh gksrk rks Hkh mls vk/kh Hkwfe izkIr djus ik=rk jgrhA ,slh fLFkfr esa vij vk;qDr }kjk izdj.k rglhy U;k;ky; dks iz'uk/khu Hkwfe ij ik=rk ds vuqlkj ukekUrj.k fd;s tkus gsrq izR;kofrZr fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA ¼m½ vij vk;qDr }kjk izdj.k Øekad 267@vihy@2003&04 esa fnukad 17&2&2005 dks ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyrs gq, fd rglhynkj] jk;lsu }kjk ikfjokfjd cVokjs ds vk/kkj ij 27&2&2003 dks ukekUrj.k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS tks fd fof/klEer gS D;ksafd mDr ukekUrj.k esa vkosfndk dks lwpuk fn;s tkus dh vko';drk ugha Fkh] bl vk/kkj ij vihy Lohdkj djus esa Hkwy dh xbZ gSA D;ksafd iz'uk/khu lEifRr iSr`d Fkh vkSj mlesa vkosfndk vko';d i{kdkj FkhA” Petitioners question the impugned order on two grounds, viz., (i) that the settlement arrived at in the year 1973 by a registered settlement deed dated 02-05-1973, and acted upon by the parties to the settlement, the parties are bound by the same and are estopped from resiling and (ii) that the petitioner No. 1 having perfected the title by virtue of provisions of section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, W.P. No.5182.06 1955 cannot be divested of her right over property which she inherited on death of Punna even after she remarries. The two fold issue which crops up for consideration is as to whether mutation proceedings of 1955-56 and 1961 could be reopened after more than four decades and whether the respondent No. 1 having acted upon the deed of settlement could resite from the same. The question of inheritance of property by the petitioner No. 1 and non-divesting of the same after she remarries has come to take a rest with coming into force section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 which stipulates : “(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.” And as held in Sundari and others v. Laxmi and others : AIR 1980 SC 198 that section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 does not relate to succession but provides that any property possessed by a female Hindu, acquired by her prior or subsequent to the Acts' commencement shall be held by her as a full, and not limited, owner. Subsequent remarriage thus does not divest her of the absolute right over the property from her husband (See also Smt. Gajodhari Devi v. Gokul and W.P. No.5182.06 another : AIR 1990 SC 46; Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma : AIR 1996 SC 869). There can therefore be no cavil regarding right of the petitioner No. 1 over the property in question. Apparent it is from the facts on record a settlement was arrived at between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 vide settlement dated 02-05-1973. No material is on record to show that the said settlement deed was ever questioned by the parties to the deed. On the contrary the right accrued thereon has been duly acted upon by the parties to the deed. The Board of Revenue overlooked this aspect. Even otherwise the respondent No. 1 had questioned the mutation after 40 years with no explanation as to what prevented her not to question the same in early years. Regarding proceedings brought by petitioner No. 2 for recording her rights over land bearing khasra No. 204 area 2.26 acres. It is pertinent to note that the said land under settlement deed dated 02-05-1973 was settled in the name of petitioner No. 1. Thus it was inter-se between petitioner No. 1 and 2 regarding recording a rights over khasra No. 204 area 2.26 acres, the respondent No. 1 who was already given her share of 8.02 acres has no locus to W.P. No.5182.06 question the said proceedings. For these reasons impugned order dated 23-12-2005 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs. (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE SC