Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Singh vs Badri Prasad on 27 June, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12992
1 WP-13189-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 27th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13189 of 2020
DEVENDRA SINGH
Versus
BADRI PRASAD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Madhur Bhargava - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"In view of the facts and grounds mentioned in the
writ petition and furtherin view of the documents annexed
hereto, the humble petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition
quashing/setting aside the impugned order dtd. 4.3.2020
(Annexure P/1) passed by learned Board of Revenue and
kindly direct the learned Tahsildar to decide the objections of
the petitioner raised by way of application under Section 32
of MPLRC in the interest of justice."
2. Short facts of the case are that a Civil Suit No.109-A/1974 was
preferred by the defendant No.2/respondent No.2 - Laxman Singh with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12992
2 WP-13189-2020
regard to dispute of the land in question between the parties, which was
decided by the Court below vide judgement and decree dated 19.10.1977
whereby decree of possession alongwith mesne profit of Rs.2000/- p.a. was
passed. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, a Civil Appeal No.51-A
of 1991 was filed by defendant No.2, which was allowed vide judgement and
decree dated 04.01.1993 by learned Additional District Judge, Vidisha.
Against which, defendant No.2/respondent No.2 Laxman Singh preferred a
Second Appeal No.60 of 1993 before this Court which was disposed of vide
judgment dated 09.03.1998 by observing as under:
"The result is that the judgments and decrees of the-two
courts below are set aside. The entire land which was the subject
matter of the dispute between three brothers is held to be joint as
coparcen-ary property and the prayer for injunction no doubt could
not be granted to the Plaintiffs against the co-owner, the same is
refused. The suits of the plaintiffs are decreed for joint Possession
along with the defendant Dalip Sing. The further remedy lies for
the purpose by way of Partition, if the parties could not continue
with joint cultivation. These two appeals are disposed of
accordingly."
3. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the petitioner before the
Tahsildar who had passed the order date 15.12.2011. Against which, a
revision was preferred before the learned Additional Collector, which was
allowed vide order dated 30.05.2012 and the matter was remanded back to
learned Tahsildar with the direction to decide the issue in the light of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12992
3 WP-13189-2020
judgement and decree dated 09.03.1998 passed in Second Appeal No.60 of
1993. After remand, Tahsildar started proceedings of partition on
03.10.2012, wherein an application under Section 32 of Madhya Pradesh
Land Revenue Code, 1959 raising certain objections therein was filed, which
was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board
of Revenue against the said order of the Tahsildar. Vide order dated
04.03.2020, the Additional Collector, District Vidisha had dismissed the
revision. Hence, the present petition.
4. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, this
Court finds that the contention of the petitioner that the objection raised by
the present petitioner before the Tahsildar concerned with regard to partition
of the land in question has not been decided in the light of the judgment
passed by this Court dated 09.03.1998 passed in Second Appeal No.60 of
1993, is totally misconceived, as there is no direction as such issued by this
Court while passing the order 09.03.1998 with regard to any partition
between the parties, rather it was only observed that if the parties could not
continue with joint cultivation, then they could avail remedy of partition.
5. Accordingly, the present petition sans merits is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
