Ishaq Shah vs Rasso Bi @ Raseeda Bi
2021 Latest Caselaw 7105 MP

                                                                          1                               WP-24068-2021
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                        WP No. 24068 of 2021
                                                   (ISHAQ SHAH AND OTHERS Vs RASSO BI @ RASEEDA BI AND OTHERS)

                                       1
                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 08-11-2021
                                             Shri Arvind Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners.
                                             Smt. Sonali Biswas, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
                                             Petitioners' contention is that vide order dated 28.08.2017 passed in
                                       Second Appeal No.920/2017 a Coordinate Bench of this Court while
                                       considering I.A. No.10895/2017 directed that till next date of hearing partition

                                       proceedings shall continue but no final decree of partition shall be passed
                                       and, thereafter, listed the case for admission along with the records.
                                             Petitioners are now assailing order dated 29.09.2021 passed by Nayab
                                       Tehsildar, Tehsil Shyampur, whereby possession of the share of the
                                       applicants was handed over to her upon mutation of her name and partition in
                                       the revenue records.
                                             It has come on record and which could not be disputed by learned
                                       counsel for the petitioners that in mutation case No.37/A-6/15-16 vide order
                                       dated 02.06.2016 mutation in the name of the applicants was allowed

                                       thereafter in revenue case No.05/A-27/16-17 vide order dated 28.02.2017
                                       partition was sanctioned in the revenue records in terms of the decree passed
                                       by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Sehore on 14.03.2016 which was confirmed in
                                       First Appeal No.3A/2016 vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017.
                                       Therefore, it is evident that in revenue records partition and mutation had
                                       already taken place prior to passing of interim orders by a Coordinate Bench
                                       of this High Court in Second Appeal No.920/2017. Thus, petitioners
                                       allegation that impugned partition has been carried out and possession has
                                       been handed over to the respondents in violation of the orders passed on

28.08.2017 does not make any sense specially when only restriction imposed on the Court was not to finalize the partition which already stood finalized Signature Not Verified SAN prior to passing of the orders in Second Appeal. Therefore, once it has come

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2021.11.09 18:58:00 IST 2 WP-24068-2021 on record that partition had taken place on 28.02.2017 then merely formality of actually putting in possession cannot be said to be violation of the order dated 28.08.2017 calling for any interference in extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order passed by Nayab Tehsildar calling for interference, petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

Tabish

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2021.11.09 18:58:00 IST