Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12965
1 WP-730-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 730 of 2024
KAMAL SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta- Senior Advocate with Shri Yashasvi Pratap
Singh Rathore - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rinkesh Goyal - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri D.P.Singh -Advocate for the respondents No. 4 to 9.
Reserved on : 21.04.2026
Pronounced on : 24.04.2026
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the legality, propriety, and validity of the order dated 29.05.2023 (Annexure P/1), whereby the appeal preferred by respondent Nos. 4 to 9 was allowed and the mutation order dated 20.10.1992 passed by the Tehsildar was set aside. The petitioners have further assailed the order dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure P/2), whereby their application seeking review of the order dated 29.05.2023 was rejected, as well as the order dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure P/3), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the order dated 29.05.2023 was affirmed.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioners are the legal heirs of late Narayan, who passed away in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/25/2026 12:40:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12965 2 WP-730-2024 year 1992. Upon his demise, the names of the petitioners were duly mutated in the revenue records on 20.10.1992 on the basis of a registered will in respect of land bearing Survey Nos. 1024/1/1, 243/4, 1059, and 1060 situated in Village Kota Lashkar, Tehsil Lashkar, District Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. The said mutation attained finality and remained unchallenged for more than three decades. Respondent Nos. 4 to 9, who are neither related to nor members of the family of the petitioners, clandestinely and without the knowledge of the petitioners moved an application before the Tehsildar seeking mutation in respect of certain other lands originally owned by Narayan, namely Survey Nos. 1024/1, 1043/3, 1043/5, 1043/6, 1051, 1051/1, and 1051/2. It is pertinent to note that these lands had already been alienated by Narayan during his lifetime by way of registered sale deeds, and although the purchasers had not got their names mutated in the revenue records, possession had already been transferred to them. Consequently, the continued recording of Narayan's name in the revenue records was merely notional and did not confer any subsisting right, title, or interest. In the mutation application, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 falsely represented themselves to be the legal heirs of Narayan along with the petitioners, without obtaining any consent from the petitioners. Acting upon such misrepresentation, the Tehsildar, by order dated 24.06.2022, erroneously directed mutation of the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 9 along with the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid lands. The petitioners were neither served with notice of the said proceedings nor had any knowledge thereof. The said order is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, and non-application of mind, particularly inasmuch Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/25/2026 12:40:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12965 3 WP-730-2024 as the lands in question no longer formed part of Narayan's estate and the respondents have no legal status as his heirs. Subsequently, after a lapse of nearly six months, respondent Nos. 4 to 9 preferred an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer challenging the mutation in favour of the petitioners in respect of Survey Nos. 1024/1/1, 243/4, 1059, and 1060, which had been effected in the year 1992. The said appeal was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of an inordinate delay of approximately 30 years; however, no sufficient cause or plausible explanation was furnished to justify such extraordinary delay. The Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to decide the appeal without ensuring proper service of notice upon the petitioners, thereby violating principles of natural justice. By the impugned order dated 29.05.2023, the Sub-Divisional Officer erroneously held that the delay stood satisfactorily explained and further concluded that since the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 9 had been recorded along with the petitioners in respect of other parcels of land, it established their status as legal heirs of Narayan. On such untenable reasoning, the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the mutation order dated 20.10.1992 and directed that the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 9 be recorded along with the petitioners in respect of the lands in question. The petitioners, upon acquiring knowledge of the said order, preferred a review petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which came to be dismissed on 04.10.2023 without proper consideration of the grounds raised. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, who initially granted an interim stay of the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/25/2026 12:40:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12965 4 WP-730-2024 order dated 29.05.2023 by order dated 16.10.2023. However, upon final hearing, the Commissioner, by order dated 26.12.2023, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, without appreciating the material irregularities, jurisdictional errors, and manifest illegality apparent on the face of the record. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, which suffer from arbitrariness, violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and are otherwise unsustainable in law, the petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court by way of the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders passed by the SDO and the Commissioner are vitiated by jurisdictional error, as both authorities failed to appreciate that an appeal against a mutation order filed after an inordinate delay of about 30 years cannot be entertained by casually condoning such delay in the absence of cogent and sufficient reasons. It is contended that the law requires a proper and reasoned consideration of an application for condonation of delay, and mechanical condonation renders the order arbitrary. Reliance is placed on precedents wherein even a delay of 16 years, when condoned without adequate justification, was held to be unsustainable and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the delay application.
4. It is further submitted that respondent No. 6, Hukum Singh, had initially filed an application for foti namantaran, pursuant to which a mutation order dated 24.06.2022 was passed in respect of the land bearing Survey Nos. 1024/2, 1043/3, 1043/5, 1043/6, 1051, 1052/1 and 1052/2, Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/25/2026 12:40:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12965 5 WP-730-2024 admeasuring in total 0.052 hectare, originally owned by Narayan Singh, the grandfather of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the SDO, Lashkar, District Gwalior, registered as Case No. 15/Appeal/2023-24. The SDO, by order dated 05.06.2024, allowed the appeal, set aside the mutation order dated 24.06.2022 and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for fresh adjudication. Thereafter, respondent No. 4, Laxmi, filed an application before the Naib Tehsildar, registered as Case No. 0477/2024-25/A-6, which came to be dismissed by the Tehsildar on 23.12.2024, holding that Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 failed to establish their relationship with Narayan Singh and directed them to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of their rights under the Indian Succession Act. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by the SDO on 15.09.2025, affirming the order of the Tehsildar.
5. It is further contended that the Commissioner, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider the crucial issue of delay and the prejudice caused to the petitioners due to the respondents' inaction for over three decades. The respondents, it is alleged, acted in a calculated manner by first obtaining a mutation order in respect of a piece of land of insignificant value by projecting themselves as legal representatives of Narayan Singh along with the petitioners, without the latter's knowledge. Subsequently, they relied upon the said mutation as proof of their status as legal heirs to seek mutation over the disputed land, which already stood recorded in the names of the petitioners. It is submitted that both the SDO and the Commissioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/25/2026 12:40:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12965 6 WP-730-2024 committed a grave error in setting aside the mutation order of 1992 solely on the ground that it was based on a will, without examining the surrounding circumstances. Such an approach is described as mechanical and contrary to settled legal principles, particularly when it results in revival of stale claims in disregard of the law of limitation.
6. It is also urged that there is no absolute prohibition on mutation entries being made on the basis of a will. The restriction applies only where the will is disputed. In the present case, the will is stated to be registered and was never challenged at the relevant time. Therefore, the interference with the mutation entry on such ground is unsustainable. On these premises, it is prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned orders dated 29.05.2023, 04.10.2023 and 26.12.2023 be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 9 submits that the appeal before the SDO arose from a mutation order dated 20.10.1992 relating to land bearing Survey Nos. 1024/1/1/1, 1043/4, 1059 and 1060, situated at Village Kota Lashkar, Tehsil and District Gwalior, which originally belonged to Narayan, the common ancestor of both parties. It is contended that the land is ancestral in nature and both parties have continued to remain in possession as per their respective shares. The respondents allege that the petitioners, by taking advantage of the mutation order dated 20.10.1992, got their names recorded in the revenue records without impleading the respondents or affording them any opportunity of hearing, as a result of which the respondents remained unaware of the said mutation.
8. It is further submitted that the alleged will, on the basis of which Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/25/2026 12:40:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12965 7 WP-730-2024 mutation was effected, is non-existent and was never executed by Narayan. It is argued that in the absence of compliance with legal requirements governing testamentary succession, particularly attestation by two witnesses and proper proof, no reliance could have been placed on such a document. The mutation, it is contended, was secured in collusion with the Patwari without any verification, public notice, or impleadment of all legal heirs, which is contrary to law. The respondents claim that they became aware of the mutation only on 10.05.2022 when the petitioners attempted to assert exclusive rights over the land. Despite seeking a certified copy of the mutation order, the same was not made available, and it was reported that the relevant record was missing, giving rise to a strong suspicion of fabrication.
9. It is submitted that the SDO, by order dated 29.05.2023, rightly set aside the mutation entry of 1992. The review petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 04.10.2023, and the subsequent appeal before the Additional Commissioner was also dismissed on 26.12.2023, affirming the SDO's order. It is further contended that the order dated 04.10.2023 has been challenged for the first time in the present proceedings, and that the petitioners did not disclose this fact while preferring the appeal before the Additional Commissioner. On these grounds, it is urged that no illegality has been committed by the authorities below and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners clarifies that the order dated 04.10.2023 is not an order passed in review on merits, but merely an order declining permission to file a review, while granting liberty to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/25/2026 12:40:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12965 8 WP-730-2024 petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal against the order dated 29.05.2023.
11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. The foundation of the proceedings initiated by respondent Nos. 4 to 9 is inherently flawed, inasmuch as their challenge to the mutation order dated 20.10.1992 was raised after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly three decades. The Sub-Divisional Officer, while entertaining such a belated appeal, failed to record any cogent or convincing reasons for condonation of delay. The exercise of discretion in condoning delay is not to be undertaken in a routine or mechanical manner, particularly when the delay is extraordinary and has the effect of unsettling long-settled rights. The impugned order dated 29.05.2023 reflects a complete non-application of mind to this crucial aspect and thus suffers from a patent jurisdictional error.
13. It is further evident that the Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to adjudicate the matter without ensuring proper service of notice upon the petitioners, thereby violating the fundamental principles of natural justice. The petitioners were deprived of an effective opportunity of hearing in proceedings which ultimately resulted in the reversal of a mutation entry that had attained finality decades ago. Such an approach strikes at the very root of fairness and renders the proceedings vitiated.
14. The reasoning adopted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, that the subsequent mutation in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 9 in respect of other parcels of land establishes their status as legal heirs of Narayan, is wholly untenable. Mutation entries are fiscal in nature and do not confer or determine title. An erroneous mutation entry cannot be relied upon to confer Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/25/2026 12:40:36 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12965 9 WP-730-2024 legitimacy upon a claim of heirship, particularly when such claim itself is disputed and unsupported by any adjudication by a competent civil court. The authorities below have thus committed a grave error in treating such mutation as determinative of legal status.
15. This Court also finds merit in the contention of the petitioners that the mutation order dated 20.10.1992 was based on a registered will which remained unchallenged for a considerable period. There is no absolute bar in law against mutation on the basis of a will, especially when it is not under dispute at the relevant time. The interference with such a mutation entry, without any adjudication on the validity of the will by a competent forum, is legally unsustainable.
16. Equally significant is the subsequent development brought on record, wherein the competent revenue authorities, in independent proceedings, have already held that respondent Nos. 4 to 9 failed to establish their relationship with Narayan and have relegated them to seek appropriate declaration before a civil court. This finding further weakens the very basis on which the impugned orders were passed.
17. The order dated 04.10.2023 rejecting the review application does not reflect any independent application of mind and merely declines interference without addressing the substantive grounds raised by the petitioners. Similarly, the order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner fails to consider the material irregularities, jurisdictional errors, and the settled legal position governing delay and mutation proceedings, and instead proceeds to affirm the erroneous order of the Sub-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/25/2026 12:40:36 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12965 10 WP-730-2024 Divisional Officer in a cursory manner.
18. In such circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the impugned orders dated 29.05.2023, 04.10.2023, and 26.12.2023 are vitiated by arbitrariness, violation of principles of natural justice, and manifest errors of law. They have resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioners by unsettling a long-standing mutation entry without due process and in disregard of settled legal principles.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.05.2023 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, order dated 04.10.2023 passed by Additional Collector, and the order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division are quashed and set aside. The mutation order dated 20.10.1992 stands restored. It is, however, made clear that if respondent Nos. 4 to 9 claim any right, title, or interest in the property, they shall be at liberty to approach the competent civil court for appropriate relief, and any such claim shall be decided independently in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made herein.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ojha Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 4/25/2026 12:40:36 PM