Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Singh Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19444
1 WP-11348-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11348 of 2023
BHARAT SINGH JADON
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.B.S.Tomar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Ekta Vyas - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Rohit Jain - Advocate for respondent No.5.
None for respondents No.6 & 7.
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
Records indicate that notices were issued to respondents No.6 & 7.
However, there is no representation on their behalf. The perusal of the
impugned order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Chambal Division, Morena reveals that the respondents No.6 & 7 did not
appear in the proceedings even before the Additional Commissioner in spite
of their being paper publication dated 11.03.2022, and accordingly, they
were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20.09.2022. Therefore, the instant
petition is being heard in their absence.
2. The instant writ petition takes exception to the order dated
09.01.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sabalgarh, District
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19444
2 WP-11348-2023
Morena, in Case No.25/19-20, and the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the
Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, in Case
No.288/Appeal/19-20, whereby the first and second appeals preferred by the
petitioner against the mutation order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the Gram
Panchayat, Badagaon, in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.481 ad
measuring 0.540 hectares, have been rejected.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in his first
and second appeals preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the
Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, he had raised the
ground of mutation of the lands in question on the basis of the Will executed
by his mother, Gangabai. However, counsel for petitioner submits that the
aforesaid ground raised by petitioner may not be correct in view of the recent
Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary Vs. State
of M.P. & Others, reported in 2025 (1) MPLJ 646. He further submits that it
is an admitted position of fact that there are three brothers and one sister who
are the successors of Gangabai, the petitioner being one of them, and
respondent No.5 Gajendra Singh, respondent No.6 Deshraj Singh, &
respondent No.7 Munni being others.
4. Learned counsel contends that in the mutation order, the name of
one other person namely, Gauri has been recorded considering her to be the
sister of the petitioner and respondents No.5, 6 & 7, whereas there is no
person like Gauri, and that Gauri and respondent No.7, i.e., Munni, are the
same individual. This fact is admitted by the respondents in paragraph 5 of
the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the SDO, Sabalgarh, District
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19444
3 WP-11348-2023
Morena. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid
admission, the petitioner may be granted liberty to move an application
under Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC) seeking
correction of the wrong or incorrect entry in the land records.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that in case the
mutation order is maintained, he has no objection to the prayer made by the
petitioner.
6. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties,
while maintaining the orders impugned dated 09.01.2020 and 16.01.2023,
and while reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to seek mutation on the
strength of Will before the competent Court of law as observed by the
Additional Commissioner in the impugned order dated 16.01.2023, liberty is
granted to the petitioner to move an application under Section 115 of the
MPLRC before the competent authority, which shall be considered and
decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
