Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sadhulal vs Ramnath Chamar on 18 October, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 18 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 13299 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SADHULAL S/O LATE GAJADHAR CHOUDHARY, AGED
ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O. WARD NO.1, VILLAGE BAGHA
TEHSIL RAGHURAJNAGAR SATNA, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAMNATH CHAMAR S/O CHUNKAWAN CHAMAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, VILL. BAGHA TEH.
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAMESH CHAMAR S/O CHUNKAWAN CHAMAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, VILL. BAGHA TEH.
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3(A) PHULAN W/O LATE GANESH CHAMAR, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. VILL. BAGHA TEH.
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3(B) RAJKUMAR S/O. LATE GANESH CHAMAR,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. VILL. BAGHA TEH.
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SMT. BESANLYA W/O LATE CHUNKAWAN
CHAMAR R/O. VILLAGE BAGHA TEH.
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SHEELA, D/O CHUNKAWAN CHAMAR, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. VILLAGE BAGHA TEH.
RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 10/20/2023
2:38:19 PM
2
PRADESH)
6. LALA D/O CHUNKAWAN CHAMAR R/O. VILLAGE
BAGHA TEH. RAGHURAJNAGAR DISTT. SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ALOK KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is of the year 2015 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India questioning the validity of order dated 27.06.2015 passed by the Board
of Revenue.
2. As per facts of the case, the petitioner has purchased the property on his
own i.e. land situate in Khasra Nos. 690, 691 and 692 at Village Baghwa and as
such, that property was his self acquired property and he purchased the same
vide registered sale deed dated 08.07.1959. However, the brother of the
petitioner moved an application before the Tehsildar for getting partition over
the property which was purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed
dated 08.07.1959 in his name. The Tehsildar has considered the said application
and partitioned the property by order dated 05.12.1984 and as such, the said
partition took place in the revenue record and the order of Tehsildar was also
mentioned in the revenue record showing that the property has been partitioned
equally in two parts.
3. Thereafter, the order of Tehsildar dated 05.12.1984 was assailed by the
petitioner by filing an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section
44(1) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the Code, 1959) who, vide
order dated 30.03.2011 set aside the order of Tehsildar which he had passed on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 10/20/2023
2:38:19 PM
05.12.1984 mainly on the ground that the partition took place only with the
consent of the parties but according to the petitioner, he has critisized the order
of partition saying that he was not heard and no notice was issued to him and
the order has been passed unilaterally without giving any audience to him.
4. The order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 30.03.2011 was assailed by the
respondents by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Rewa
Division, Rewa mainly on the ground that the order of the Sub Divisional
Officer is illegal because no opportunity was granted to the respondents and the
order of Tehsildar was set aside in appeal preferred before the Sub Divisional
Officer. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 05.09.2013 had allowed
the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer.
5. The order of Additional Commissioner dated 05.09.2013 was further
assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision under Section 50 of the Code, 1959
before the Board of Revenue, who by the impugned order dated 27.06.2015
dismissed the revision against which the present petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some civil suits have also
been filed and in one of the civil suits filed by the respondents, they have
challenged the order of Sub Divisional Officer which was also subject matter of
an appeal before the Additional Commissioner and in that appeal, the order of
Sub Divisional Officer was set aside. He further submits that the respondents
have also filed a civil suit seeking decree of declaration that 1/2 of the property
which got purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed in his name
shall also be declared the property of the respondents because according to the
respondents, it was not the self acquired property but was an ancestral
property. He further submits that under such a circumstance keeping this
petition pending is of no use because the order of the civil Court will be binding
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 10/20/2023
2:38:19 PM
upon the revenue authority and the revenue entries accordingly would be
corrected, therefore, this petition according to him has virtually rendered
infructuous. However, he submits that the foundation of claiming decree of
declaration by the respondents is the order passed by the Tehsildar partitioned
the decree which is illegal and that order be set aside otherwise that would come
in the way of the petitioner to contest the civil suit claiming that the property
cannot be partitioned and it is his self acquired property.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the order
passed by the Nayab Tehsildar partitioned the property is proper because it is
rightly noticed by the said revenue officer that the property was not the self
acquired property but it was the ancestral one and, therefore, he submitted that
the petition is without any substance and deserves to be dismissed.
8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of record, I am disposing of this petition directing the parties to
contest the civil suit in which decree of declaration over the half of the property
which is subject matter of the revenue proceeding, has been claimed. In such a
circumstance, the order of Tehsildar passed on an application made by the
respondents seeking partition of the property which was purchased by the
petitioner by virtue of sale deed dated 08.07.1959 is set aside. It is made clear
that the order of Tehsildar since set aside and the decree passed by the Civil
Court with regard to the property which according to the petitioner was
purchased by him vide registered sale deed dated 08.07.1959, the same would
be governed with the judgment and decree passed by the civil court in which the
respondents have sought declaration of title over the property in question.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 10/20/2023
2:38:19 PM
9 . The civil suit in which decree of declaration is sought for is pending since
2013 and, therefore, the trial Court is directed to expedite the civil suit and pass
a final order. Till the final order is passed in the civil suit, it is directed that
parties shall maintain the status-quo.
10. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rao
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO
Signing time: 10/20/2023
2:38:19 PM
