Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaluram Through Lrs Rajendra Patidar vs Govind on 4 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16828
-1- WA-9-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 4th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 9 of 2025
KALURAM THROUGH LRS RAJENDRA PATIDAR AND OTHERS
Versus
GOVIND
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Pourush Ranka - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Appellants/petitioners have filed this writ appeal challenging the
order dated 26.09.2024, whereby the Writ Petition No.2872 of 2021
(Kaluram Deceased through Lrs. Rajendra and others v/s Govind) has
been partly allowed.
The facts of the case, in short, are as under:
02. Kaluram Patidar and Nandram Patidar both were real brothers
living jointly and cultivating the agricultural lands. On 14.02.1958
Nathu the brother-in-law of Nandram sold land to him. Kaluram and
Nandram both filed an application on 21.08.1967 for mutation of a
disputed land jointly and the Tehsildar passed an order for partition of
the lands. Vide order dated 13.12.1967, the application for mutation was
allowed and the lands were partitioned between Kaluram and Nandram.
Nathu raised an objection about the land bearing survey No.113
claiming himself to be an owner of the said land. After some time,
another order of partition of the various lands was passed on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16828
-2- WA-9-2025
17.01.1994. In these proceedings, Nathu filed an appeal before the Sub
Divisional Officer. Nathu also filed a civil suit No.48-A/1995 against
Nandram and Kaluram on 14.06.1994 for declaration and permanent
injunction for land bearing survey No.113 and that partition order dated
17.01.1994 be declared as void. The aforesaid suit was filed through
power of attorney holder Govind S/o Late Nandram i.e. respondent
which is marked as Exhibit-P/1 in the civil suit. The respondent Govind
appeared as PW/1 and admitted that Nandram defendant is his father.
03. In the record of the civil suit, the copy of the order dated
17.01.1994 is on record, therefore, during the pendency of the civil suit,
the respondent Govind knew the partition orders dated 13.12.1967 and
17.01.1994. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
15.12.1967. Thereafter, through power of attorney i.e. respondent No.1
Nathu filed a first appeal which was also dismissed vide judgment dated
21.05.2000 and thereafter, Nathu filed the Second Appeal No.314/2000
before this Court. During the pendency of this second appeal, Nathu
expired, and his legal heirs have been brought on record. Nandram has
expired, and 5 legal heirs have been brought on record out of which
respondent Govind is one of them. Nandram has 3 daughters i.e.
Santoshbai, Sumanbai and Dhannobai, therefore, respondent Govind
had knowledge about this partition between Nandram and Kaluram.
04. In the year 2015, Govind / respondent filed an appeal before the
Sub Divisional Officer challenging the order of partition dated
13.12.1967 and 17.01.1994 that his father Nandram purchased the land
from Nathu and same was wrongly recorded by way of partition in the
name of Kaluram. Along with this appeal, an application for
condonation of delay was also filed because he is an illiterate villager
and for want of proper legal advice, he could not prefer the appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16828
-3- WA-9-2025
within time. Para 2 is reproduced below:
"2. यहकि, अपीलाथी प्राथी ने वैधाननि उपयुक्त सलाह िे अभाव में
ग्रामीण अनपढ़ व्यनक्त होने से तथािनथत तहसील न्यायालय िे आदेश
13.12.1967 एवं 17.1.1994 िे नवरुद्ध अपील प्रस्तुत ना िरते हुए
तत्समय से अब ति अनधिारीयों िो ननवेदन िरता रहा निसमें अब
ति िा समय िाया हुआ हैं।"
05. This is the only reason seeking condonation of 48 years pleaded in
the application. Kaluram filed an objection to the aforesaid application
and SDO vide order dated 30.06.2015 dismissed the application for
condonation of delay. Challenging the aforesaid order, the appeal was
filed by Govind before the Additional Collector. Vide order dated
02.02.2021, the Additional Collector has set aside the order of SDO
dated 30.06.2015 as well as the order dated 13.12.1967 and directed to
restore the entries in the revenue record.
06. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred a
writ petition which has been partly allowed by observing that the
revisional authority in condoning the delay does not call for
interference, but the restoration of legal status was not warranted,
therefore, that part of the order passed by the Additional Collector has
been set aside and modified to the extent of remanding the matter back
to the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhar to decide the appeal of Govind on
merit. Hence, this writ appeal before this Court.
07. Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the Writ Court has not assigned any reasons for upholding
the order passed by the Collector, especially on the issue of condonation
of delay of 48 years. Govind was contesting the civil suit on the power
of attorney of Nathu against his own father Nandram as well as
Kaluram, therefore, he knew about this partition and despite that, he did
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16828
-4- WA-9-2025
not prefer an appeal within time.
08. Shri Pourash Ranka, learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the respondent is disputing the documents filed along with the writ
appeal as they were not filed in the writ petition. The notices were
received by the respondent along with all these documents and in
January the respondent had completed four months to file a reply to this
writ appeal, therefore, now, such a plea cannot be taken and hence, this
appeal be dismissed.
09. Shri Pourush Ranka, learned counsel for the respondent further
objects to the maintainability of this writ appeal on the ground that same
is filed against the order passed by the Writ Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that under
M.P. Uccha Nyayalaya Adhiniyam writ appeal lies only against the
order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Although, the writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India the same was against the private party not against
any order passed by the civil Court. The orders passed by the revenue
authorities are liable to be challenged under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
because these authorities are not subordinate Court to the High Court,
thus, the writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Hence, this writ appeal is maintainable.
11. Nandram and Kaluram both were contesting the civil suit against
Nathu, but now, that litigation has come to the High Court in the year
2000 and after 15 years of it, Govind son of Nandram @ Nandu started
disputing the orders of partition recorded passed way back in
13.12.1967 and 17.01.1994. Had it been a case that he was not a party to
the litigation between Nathu, Nandram and Kaluram he could have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:16828
-5- WA-9-2025
pleaded ignorance of the partitioned, but he was contesting the civil suit
as the power of attorney holder of Nathu against his father Nandram.
Therefore, it cannot be believed that he did not know the order of
partition. The Additional Collector did not consider the case properly on
the issue of condonation of delay and rather dealt with the case on merit
and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. Govind might have
a good case on merit, but the delay of 48 years has not been explained
properly, thus, orders of mutation had attained finality. Hence, the Sub
Divisional Officer rightly assigned the reasons for not condoning the
delay, but neither the Additional Collector nor the Writ Court has
assigned any reason as to why the delay of 48 years is liable to be
condoned for entertaining the appeal after 48 years on merit.
12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 passed
by the Writ Court and the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the
Additional Collector is hereby set aside. The order of the Sub Divisional
Officer is upheld.
13. With the aforesaid observation, this Writ Appeal stands
allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
