Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13355
1 WA-1090-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 1090 of 2025
MAHENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma- learned Counsel for appellant.
Shri N. K. Gupta- learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. D. Singh Bhadoriya-
learned Counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5.
ORDER
Per: Justice Hirdesh:
Being dissatisfied with the order dated 01-04-2025 passed by writ Court in Writ Petition No. 5537 of 2025, allowing the writ petition filed by respondents No.4 and 5 (writ petitioners) and setting aside the order of mutation, this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred at the instance of appellant.
(2) Necessary facts for disposal of appeal, in short, are that after death of Bheem Singh on 05-05-1992, who was exclusive owner of land bearing Survey Nos. 26, 35/2, 74, 85, 86 and 88/1, total area 14.601 hectares situated in Village-
Pathari, Basoda, District Vidisha, names of his successors i.e. his wife Smt. Ballo Bai and two sons (writ petitioners) were recorded in mutation record which was certified by Tahsildar on 21-02-1993. Mother of writ petitioners Smt. Ballo Bai died on 11-11-1993. Appellant got the land partitioned in Panji No.7 passed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 7/4/2025 04:54:11 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13355 2 WA-1090-2025 Tahsildar (Annexure P-3 annexed with writ petition) vide order dated 20-04-2010. When writ petitioners came to know that a fraud has been committed by appellant and without filing an application under Section 178 of MPLRC and issuing any notice to co-owners of the land, behind the back, collusion with the revenue authorities, appellant got the land partitioned, therefore, after receipt of certified copy, writ petitioners filed an appeal before the SDO (Revenue), Basoda along with an application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was allowed by SDO (Revenue) vide order dated 19-09- 2017. Against the order of SDO (Revenue), a revision was filed by appellant before the Board of Revenue which was transferred because of amendment in Section 50 of MPLRC for decision to the Collector and the Additional Collector, District Vidisha dismissed the revision filed by appellant vide order dated 16-10- 2019 with a direction to the SDO (Revenue) to decide the appeal on merits. Against the order of Additional Collector, appellant filed a Misc. Petition No. 5854 of 2019 before this Court which was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 08-12-2021 with a direction to the SDO (Revenue), Basoda to conduct an enquiry into the factual dispute arising between the parties regarding limitation of appeal pending before it and it was directed that if the conclusion of such enquiry reveals the fact that the writ petitioners have been cheated and the appeal has been filed within the limitation from the date of knowing about the fraud, then SDO (Revenue) shall decide the appeal as time- limit and decide on its merits, otherwise, if the writ petitioners fail to prove the factum of cheating/fraud, then SDO (Revenue) shall consider the appeal beyond the period of limitation and take further action as per law.
(3). In pursuant to order dated 08-12-2021 passed by this Court in Misc.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 7/4/2025 04:54:11 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13355 3 WA-1090-2025 Petition No. 5854 of 2019 and a report was called from the Tahsildar. On the basis of report of Tahsildar, the SDO (Revenue) vide order dated 11-05-2023, dismissed the appeal of writ petitioners holding the appeal to be beyond the period of limitation and no fraud has been played by appellant upon the writ petitioners. Being aggrieved with the order of SDO (Revenue), writ petitioners preferred a revision before the Additional Collector which was also dismissed by the Additional Collector vide order dated 05-12-2023 affirming the order of SDO (Revenue). Thereafter, the writ petitioners filed a writ petition i.e. WP No.5537 of 2025 challenging the impugned orders passed by Revenue Courts and the Writ Court allowed the writ petition of writ petitioners as under:-
''21. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court comes to a conclusion that Panji No.7 whereby partition has been recorded between the petitioner and respondent No.4, was not permissible in law as respondent No.4 was neither co-owner nor tenure-holder or co- parcener of the property and no partition, thus, could have been effected. This Court instead of remitting the matter back for reconsideration, deems it appropriate to quash Panji No.7. Accordingly, order dated 20-04-2010 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil Basoda District Vidisha and order dated 11.05.2023 passed by SDO, Basoda District Vidisha and order dated 05.12.2023 passed by Additional Collector District Vidisha are also hereby quashed.'' (4) Hence, the intra-Court appeal.
(5) It is contended on behalf of appellant that when the order passed by the Tahsildar, the same was within the knowledge of writ petitioners and no fraud was committed with the writ petitioners. Such finding of fact was given by the SDO (Revenue) and which was confirmed in appeal by Additional Collector. After a detailed enquiry, it has been found that neither any fraud has been played nor writ petitioners was ignorant about the order of partition. Both appellant and writ petitioners are bound by order dated 08-12-2021 passed by this Court in Misc.
Petition No. 5851 of 2019 and in pursuance of such order, the appeal filed by writ Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 7/4/2025 04:54:11 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13355 4 WA-1090-2025 petitioners was rightly dismissed by SDO (Revenue) as barred by time and the finding of fact was rightly affirmed by the Additional Collector in revision filed by writ petitioners. There was no finding given by the revenue authorities on the merits of the case. The writ Court going beyond the scope of litigation, set aside the entire orders passed by the revenue authorities by allowing the petition of writ petitioners, which is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. The rejection of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the SDO (Revenue) was proper. Therefore, it is prayed that the matter be remanded back to the SDO (Revenue) to decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law.
(6) On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5, by supporting the order impugned passed by writ Court, opposed the contentions of appellant and submitted that SDO (Revenue) has committed an error in dismissing the appeal of writ petitioners (respondent No.4 and 5) although Tahsildar in its report dated 07-10-2022 has specifically mentioned the fact that mutation made in favour of third person is contrary to provisions of Section 178 of MPLRC. Although delaying in filing the appeal was explained by writ petitioners with plausible reasons, the SDO (Revenue) taking a hyper-technical approach had rejected the same which is illegal and arbitrary. The Additional Collector also did not consider this aspect in proper perspective while affirming the order of SDO (Revenue).
(7) Heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. (8) On perusal of record, it was found that learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of MP No. 5854 of 2019, vide order dated 08-12-2021 had emphatically directed to SDO (Revenue) to conduct necessary enquiry into the factual dispute arising between the parties regarding the pendency of appeal filed by writ petitioners before it and after enquiry, if the SDO (Revenue) comes to a Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 7/4/2025 04:54:11 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13355 5 WA-1090-2025 conclusion that if respondents have been cheated and appeal has been filed within the limitation from the date of knowing about the fraud, then the SDO (Revenue) shall consider the appeal of writ petitioners as time limit and decide the same on merits, otherwise, if the respondents failed to prove the fact of cheating/fraud, then the SDO (Revenue) shall consider the appeal beyond the period of limitation and take further action in accordance with law.
(9) Thereafter, in the light of order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in MP No.5854 of 2024, vide order dated 8-12-2021, the SDO (Revenue) found that the appeal is beyond limitation and rejected the appeal filed by writ petitioners and the order of SDO( Revenue) was affirmed by Additional Collector. Being aggrieved by the orders of SDO(Revenue) and Additional Commissioner, writ petitioners filed a writ petition in which the learned Writ Court rightly found that since some fraud was played at the time of preparation of Panji No.7, the delay to file appeal by the writ petitioners before the SDO (Revenue) is just and proper and, therefore, the SDO has wrongly rejected the application for condonation of delay.
(10) Although the learned writ Court while passing the impugned order also observed that the partition recorded between the appellant and writ petitioners was not permissible in law as appellant was neither co-owner nor tenure-holder or co-parcener of property and no partition could have been effected, but instead of remanding the matter back to SDO (Revenue), quashed the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities, which is not just and proper because the SDO (Revenue) has not passed any order on its merit.
(11) Therefore, this Court thinks it appropriate to remand the matter to SDO (Revenue) to decide the appeal on its own merits. Thus, the findings arrived at by learned writ Court in not remanding the matter back to SDO (Revenue) is Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 7/4/2025 04:54:11 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13355 6 WA-1090-2025 modified. The SDO (Revenue) is directed to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(12) With aforesaid observations, the instant writ appeal is partly allowed and stands disposed of.
CC as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MKB
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 7/4/2025
04:54:11 PM