Madhya Pradesh High Court
Udham Singh vs Kamal Singh on 31 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27695
1 WP-37832-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 31st OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 37832 of 2024
UDHAM SINGH
Versus
KAMAL SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pavan Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ramrajya Singh Dangi, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
1 . With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally.
2 . The instant writ petition was initially filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and was registered as M.P. No. 4383/2022. Subsequently, vide order dated 19/11/2024, the same was permitted to be converted in writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India and was re-numbered as W.P. No. 37832/2024.
3. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 17/08/2022 & 17/02/2022 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha and Additional Collector, District Vidisha M.P. respectively, whereby, the application under section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of partition dated 19/09/2018 passed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/3/2025 5:45:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27695 2 WP-37832-2024 the Tehsildar has been rejected and the revision preferred against the same has been rejected.
4 . Brief facts leading to filing of the petition are that Kalluram, who was Bhumiswami of the land bearing survey No. 1228/1 situated at village kasba Sironj, District Vidisha admeasuring 0.448 hectares has moved an application under section 178-A of MPLRC, 1959 before the Tehsildar Sironj, District Vidisha seeking partition of the said lands amongst its legal heirs (private respondents). The said application came to be allowed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 19/09/2018. Since, the petitioner herein was also the legal heir of the Kalluram and was aggrieved by order dated 19/09/2018, he challenged the same in appeal under section 44 of MPLRC, 1959 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha.
5 . Since there was delay of three years in filing of the appeal, a separate application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 was also filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, it was stated by the petitioner that he was not aware of passing of the order dated 19/09/2018. He learnt about passing of the order dated 19/09/2018 only for the first time on 26/07/2021 from the Halka Patwari and thereafter he preferred an appeal. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing of the application for condonation of delay.
6 . The said application came to be rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha vide order dated 17/02/2022 on the ground that no sufficient reason has been assigned by the petitioner in his application seeking condonation of delay. Revision preferred by the petitioner against Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/3/2025 5:45:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27695 3 WP-37832-2024 the said order has also been dismissed vide order dated 17/08/2022 thereby affirming the order dated 17/02/2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha. These said impugned orders are under challenge in the instant writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to section 178-A of MPLRC, 1959 submits that in terms of sub section (1) of section 178-A of MPLRC, 1959, the Bhumiswami, if he wishes to partition his agricultural land amongst the legal heirs during his life time, he may apply for the same under the provisions of section 178 of MPLRC, 1959 before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar after hearing legal heirs divide the holdings and apportionment the property in accordance with provisions under the Code. Learned counsel further submits that since petitioner was also one of the legal heirs, he was essentially required to be heard prior to passing of the order under section 178-A of MPLRC, 1959 for partition. By referring to the order dated 19/09/2018 passed by the Tehsildar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order nowhere indicates that either the petitioner was impleaded as party applicant/respondent in the said proceedings or he was afforded opportunity of hearing, which violates statutory provisions as contained in section 178 (2) of MPLRC, 1959.
8 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in his application under section 5 of Limitation Act he specifically pleaded that he was not aware about passing of the order dated 19/09/2018 and only for the first time on 26/07/2021 he got knowledge about passing of the order dated 19/09/2018 when he met the Patwari and on the basis of the proceedings Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/3/2025 5:45:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27695 4 WP-37832-2024 drawn by the Tehsildar, it can be gathered that the petitioner was not impleaded or noticed and, therefore, from the date of knowledge he had approached the first appellate authority and accordingly application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 ought to have been allowed. He further submits that revisional court has glossed over the said material aspect while rejecting the revision. He further submits that co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03/02/2020 passed in M.P. No. 3718/2019 has held that the term "amongst his legal heirs" used in section 178-A of MPLRC, 1959 and the use of the word "legal heir s" in sub section 2 of section 178 of MPLRC, 1959 makes it clear that the Tehsildar ought to have given an opportunity of all the legal heirs and not to some of the legal heirs mentioned in the application. Accordingly, he submits that the orders impugned in the instant writ petition deserve to be quashed.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no sufficient reason was assigned by the petitioner in his application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 filed before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha. The petitioner as well as respondents reside in the same house and, therefore, it has to be presumed that the petitioner along with other legal heirs were having knowledge of the order dated 19/09/2018 passed by the Tehsildar. By referring to the revisional court's order dated 17/08/2022, he submits that the revisional court has also considered this aspect that the petitioner herein has received certain property as per his share vide order dated 30/07/2008 passed by the Tehsildar in some other revenue case and for this reason, the petitioner is even otherwise not entitled for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/3/2025 5:45:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27695 5 WP-37832-2024 benefit in the impugned partition. He further submits that law does not contemplate impleadment of all the legal heirs and only requirement is affording opportunity of hearing. He further submits that advertisement on the application for partition was published as has been noted in the order dated 19/09/2018 and thereafter Fard Batwara was prepared. This fact was also within the knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, the authority has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
10. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
11. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record.
1 2 . Perusal of the order dated 19/09/2018 passed by the Tehsildar indicates that while filing application under section 178-A of MPLRC, 1959, the petitioner was not impleaded as applicant. His name does not find mention amongst the names of the applicants. There is nothing on record to indicate that any notice was issued to the petitioner as regards filing of the said application for partition nor there is any plausible material to indicate that petitioner was heard prior to passing of the order by Tehsildar.
1 3 . It can therefore, if can be safely said that the order dated 19/09/2018 was passed behind the back of the petitioner and, therefore, the stand taken by the petitioner in his application filed under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 that he had no knowledge of the order dated 19/09/2018 appears to be correct. Except for stating that the petitioner had knowledge of the order dated 19/09/2018 as he was residing in the same Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/3/2025 5:45:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27695 6 WP-37832-2024 house with the respondents, no material has been placed on record by the respondents to establish that infact the petitioner had any knowledge of the order dated 19/09/2018 even though, he was not heard by the Tehsildar.
14. In that view of the matter and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing of the first appeal ought to have been condoned by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha. Once, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha has declined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and has not adverted to the merit of the case of the rival parties. The reliance placed upon by the counsel for the respondent to the observation made in the impugned revisional order that the petitioner has received his share earlier pursuant to the order dated 30/07/2008 passed in some other case is of no consequence as merits of the appeal were not examined by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha by himself.
1 5 . Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that sufficient reasons were assigned by the petitioner in his application seeking condonation of delay in fling the first appeal.
16. Consequently, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned orders dated 17/02/2022 & 17/08/2022 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha and Additional Collector, District Vidisha M.P respectively are hereby quashed. The application under section 5 of Limitation Act filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is hereby allowed. The matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/3/2025 5:45:40 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27695 7 WP-37832-2024 Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha for consideration of the appeal of the petitioner on merits.
17. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the claim of either of the parties and it shall be open for the Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observation made in this order.
18. All interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
19. Certified copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE Durgekar Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 11/3/2025 5:45:40 PM