Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naval Kishor Ojha vs Smt. Pista Bai on 18 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4137
1 WP-3273-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 18 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3273 of 2025
NAVAL KISHOR OJHA
Versus
SMT. PISTA BAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shivendra Singh Raghuvansi - Advocate for respondent No.1.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
seeking following relief (s):-
"7.1 That, the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P/1)
passed by the Additional Collector Shivpuri in Case
No.009/Revision/2022-2023 and the order dated 19.04.2022
(Annexure P/2) passed by the S.D.O. (Revenue) in Case
No.135/Appeal/2021-2022 may kindly be set-aside.
7.2 That, the order partition dated 10.10.2018 (Annexure P/4) passed
by Tehsildar may kindly be confirmed.
7.3 That, the other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deems
fit, in favour of the petitioner may kindly be granted considering the
fact and circumstances of the case."
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner by registered sale
deed dated 21.05.2009 purchased the land in dispute from one Brindavan.
Thereafter, petitioner decided to construct his house but since co-owners were not
ready for construction, therefore, petitioner filed an application for partition.
Thereafter, fard report was prepared. Since it was not objected by co-sharer,
therefore, the order of partition was passed in partition panji on 10.10.2018.
3. Being aggrieved by partition order, respondent No.1 filed an appeal after
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4137
2 WP-3273-2025
four years of order of partition. The appeal filed by respondent No.1 was allowed
by S.D.O. by order dated 19.04.2022 passed in Case No.135/Appeal/2021-2022.
Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred a revision which too has
been dismissed by order dated 30.11.2022 passed in Revision
No.0009/Revision/2022-2023.
4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that power has been delegated to
Gram Panchayat to carry out the partition in disputed cases by passing a
resolution. The resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat which is duly
mentioned in the partition panji. Since no objection was ever taken by any co-
sharer, therefore, partition was carried out in partition panji.
5. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondent.
It is submitted that neither petitioner has filed the copy of resolution passed by
Gram Panchayat nor the proceedings were registered under Section 178 of M.P.
Land Revenue Code. The partition was carried out contrary to the Rules framed
under Section 178 of MPLR Code. Thus, it is submitted that authorities below did
not commit any mistake by setting aside the order of partition.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties.
7. Counsel for petitioner submitted that by notification passed under Section
24 of MPLR Code, authority has been delegated to Gram Panchayat to accept an
undisputed partition by passing a resolution.
8. The petitioner has not filed any documents to show that any resolution
was ever passed by the Panchayat. Petitioner has merely relied upon the partition
panji (Annexure P/4) which bears the signature of Panchas also. Counsel for
petitioner could not justify the manner in which the Panchayat had acted and
instead of passing a resolution in a Gram Panchayat, it was simply mentioned in
the panchayat panji.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4137
3 WP-3273-2025
9. Be that whatever it may be.
10. Rules have been framed under Section 178 of MPLR Code. No case was
registered by Tehsildar to carry out the partition. There is nothing on record to
show that any public notice was issued, although the partition panji mentions that
no objection is received in response to public notice. No statement of the
witnesses/co-sharers were recorded to find out as to whether they have any
objection or not. Partition in the partition panji without any separate proceedings
is unknown to the procedure as laid down under the MPLR Code. The S.D.O.
Karera, Shivpuri by relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Gappulal Meena Vs. Gajanand and Others , reported in 2001 Revenue Nirnay 136
has held that division cannot be done in mutation register by the Revenue
Authority. Actual division of a Khata not only envisages the division of a Khasra
but it entails responsibility on revenue authorities to mark this division on village
Naksha also.
11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the
authorities below did not commit any mistake by setting aside the partition done
in partition register. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference.
12. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AK/-
