Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babulal vs Santosh Kumar on 7 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28333
1 WP-39-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 7 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 39 of 2013
BABULAL
Versus
SANTOSH KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Madhur Bhargava - Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents, though served and represented.
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the
SDO, Pargana, Mungaoli, District Ashoknagar whereby, the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner along with an
appeal against the order dated 20.10.2000 has been rejected and the delay
has been declined to be condoned.
2. The petition also challenges the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by
the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior whereby, the second appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the
SDO has been rejected. The petition also challenges the order dated
19.06.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior whereby, the revision
preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 29.03.2012 and 31.01.2012
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28333
2 WP-39-2013
has been rejected.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the petition are as under:-
3.1 The respondents, on the strength of a registered Will dated
10.03.2000 executed by Biharilal, moved an application for mutation before
the Tehsildar, Mungaoli, village Malhargarh, Tehsil Mungaoli, seeking
mutation of land bearing Survey No.674 area 16 bigha and Survey No.458
area 0.860 hectare in their favour on the ground that the said lands had been
bequeathed in favour of the respondents through the aforesaid registered
Will. The Tehsildar passed the order dated 20.10.200 whereby, the mutation
application filed by the respondents was allowed.
3.2 Aggrieved by the said mutation order, nearly after a lapse of 11
years, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 44 (1) of the M.P.
Land Revenue Code, 1959 challenging the order dated 20.10.2000 on the
ground that the land in question had been bequeathed in their favour through
a Will executed by Uttamchand and that the respondents had illegally got the
land mutated in their favour.
3.3 Since there was delay of about 11 years in filing the appeal, the
petitioner moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
seeking condonation of delay. The SDO passed the order dated 31.01.2012
whereby, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the
petitioner was rejected and the delay was declined to be condoned. The
second appeal as well as the revision preferred by the petitioner against the
said order came to be rejected by orders dated 29.03.2012 and 19.06.2012,
respectively.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28333
3 WP-39-2013
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
authorities below have committed a jurisdictional error in declining to
entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioner. He submits that it is a well -
settled principle of law that mutation proceedings could not be done on the
basis of a Will and therefore, his appeal ought to have been allowed by the
SDO. The aforesaid illegality has, however, been perpetuated by the second
appellate as well as the revisional authority by rejecting the second appeal
and the revision preferred by the petitioner. In support of his contention, the
counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the Full Bench
Judgment of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary Vs. State of M.P.
and others, reported in 2025 (1) M.P.L.J. 646 .
5. None appeared for the respondents when the matter was taken up on
20.08.2025. However, in order to afford an opportunity to the respondents,
the matter was adjourned. Even today, none appeared for the respondents in
the first round, and even in the passover round, none appeared for the
respondents.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The issue which arises for consideration before this Court is
whether, the SDO has committed any illegality in declining to condone the
delay of 11 years, thereby rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner along with the first appeal.
8. The perusal of the order dated 31.1.2012 passed by the SDO
indicates that on the basis of reply filed by the petitioner before SDO on
30.05.2011 a finding has been recorded that the petitioner herein was aware
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28333
4 WP-39-2013
of the mutation order dated 20.10.2000 since beginning and it is only when
the proceedings for partition of certain lands were going on, he had chosen to
challenge the order in the year 2011. The reasons assigned by the petitioner
in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay were found to be insufficient and, accordingly, the delay was declined
to be condoned. The aforesaid finding recorded by the SDO has been
affirmed by both the first appellate authority as well as the revisional
authority.
9. The three authorities below have concurrently held that the
petitioner was aware of the passing of the order dated 20.10.2000 but the
same challenged by him after a delay of approximately 11 years thereby
declining to condone the delay. The aforesaid finding does not appear to be
perverse or contrary to material available on record.
10. The petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v.
Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 , has held that the power of
superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 is to be
exercised most sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals
within the bounds of their authority. It has been further held that the High
Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, does not act as an
appellate court to correct mere errors of fact or law unless there is a manifest
error or perversity in the findings.
11. In the present case, the concurrent findings recorded by the
authorities below are based on appreciation of the material available on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28333
5 WP-39-2013
record. The petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or jurisdictional
error in the impugned orders so as to warrant interference by this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court does
not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
12. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No
order as to costs.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
