The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) has held that the approved resolution plan is binding on all authorities, including Revenue and Stamp Authorities and the refusal to effect mutation can be considered as contrary to the statutory mandate. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent authorities (State Government) to forthwith mutate the Petitioner’s name “Mahan Energen Limited” in all relevant land/revenue records pertaining to the subject lands, subject to final adjudication of the writ petition.
A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt observed that the resolution plan given by the NCLT is binding on every authority, and the authorities have failed to carry out the mutation of the company’s name in the land/revenue records. The inaction is continuing, unexplained, and contrary to the settled principle governing mutation proceedings.
The binding order passed by the NCLT on 01.11.2021 continues to operate in full force, remains unimpeached, and there is no stay, suspension, or setting aside of the said order by any forum. The ROC has given recognition to the resolution by effecting the change in legal identity in the record of the ROC, changing the name to “Mahan Energen Limited” from 25.03.2022, added the Bench.
The Bench emphasised that the State does not dispute the title of the subject land of the petitioner as successor-in-interest and is accepting the Bhu-bhatak (land revenue) from the petitioner in the name of Mahan Energen Ltd. while refusing to record the name in the revenue record. The mutation of the name on the basis of a judicial/quasi-judicial order passed by the competent authority is ministerial and is not discretionary at all.
Thus, the Bench stated that the Revenue Authorities are bound to carry out such entry once foundational facts are undisputed; they cannot convert this administrative functioning into a quorum of adjudicating collateral issues. Considering the provisions of Section 31 of IBC which gives a statutory mandate, the approved resolution plan is binding on all authorities, including Revenue and Stamp Authorities, and the refusal to effect mutation can be considered as contrary to the statutory mandate.
Briefly, the petitioner filed an application seeking an interim measure to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith mutate the petitioner’s name “Mahan Energen Limited” in all relevant land/revenue records pertaining to the subject lands in place of its predecessor, Essar Power M.P. Limited, subject to final adjudication of the writ petition. The petitioner is the owner/successor-in-interest of the subject lands post approval and implementation of the resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC.
The corporate name stands lawfully changed and certified by the ROC, and the respondent authorities have, for years, accepted bhu-bhatak/land-revenue from the petitioner in the name “Mahan Energen Limited.” The non-mutation is causing continuing and irreparable business prejudice, as the petitioner is unable to enjoy the fruits of the NCLT order, and financing/securitisation is adversely impacted since banks/financial institutions insist on current revenue records reflecting the borrower’s name.
The non-mutation is also impeding regulatory and departmental interfaces that rely upon name-matched land records. The State opposed the application, submitting that looking to the nature of the prayer, it amounts to allowing the main petition, and further submitted that the State was not a party before the NCLT when the order was passed and is challenging the order before the High Court.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Gopal Jain and Advocate Sahil Sonkusale, for the Petitioner
Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthi, for the Respondent/ State
