Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Asha Bai@ Deepika vs Ashok Singh on 28 October, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31102
1 WP-564-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 564 of 2025
SMT. ASHA BAI@ DEEPIKA AND OTHERS
Versus
ASHOK SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.03.2024 (Annexure
P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore
affirming the order dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mandleshwar, District Khargone.
02. On the basis of a will dated 04.03.1999 having been executed in
her favour by her father, Shiv Singh Thakur, petitioner No.1 Smt. Asha Bai
@ Deepika filed an application under Sections 109, 110 of M.P. Land
Revenue Code, 1959 before the Naib Tehsildar for her mutation over the
disputed land. On the application, a case was duly registered and publication
was made. By observing that no objection has been received, the application
was allowed by the Naib Tehsildar by order dated 04.03.1999. The said order
was challenged by respondents No.1 to 3 by preferring an appeal before the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31102
2 WP-564-2025
Sub Divisional Officer which was allowed by him by order dated 24.05.2023
which order has been maintained by the Additional Commissioner by way of
the impugned order.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after filing
of mutation application by petitioner No.1, publication was made and no
objection was received hence on the basis of the same, mutation was directed
by the Tehsildar which was perfectly legal and ought not to have been
interfered with. Petitioner No.1 is the daughter of the deceased, who had
executed a will in her favour hence she had rightly been directed to be
mutated. The will had not been contested by respondents No.1 to 3 hence
mutation on its basis could not have been declined on the ground of the will
being disputed.
04. Petitioner No.1 is not the natural daughter of deceased Shiv Singh
Thakur but has stated herself to be his adopted daughter. Her adoption is not
an admitted fact. Pertinently, she had not sought mutation over the disputed
land on the basis of being the natural heir of Shiv Singh Thakur but had
sought mutation on the basis of will having been executed by him in her
favour. From a perusal of the will itself, it is evident that Shiv Singh Thakur
along with his brothers, whose legal representatives are respondents No.1 to
3, were the joint owners of various lands hence respondents No.1 to 3 would
certainly have a direct interest in the disputed land. Proceedings for partition
between Shiv Singh Thakur and his brothers were stated to be pending in the
said will. They were also stated to be having equal shares. Respondents No.1
to 3 being persons having interest were mandatorily required to be issued
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31102
3 WP-564-2025
individual notices of proceedings for mutation but they were not impleaded
as parties by petitioner No.1 for which reason no notice was issued to them.
Mere making of publication and no objection being received consequently
could not have been a ground for allowing the application preferred by
petitioner No.1.
05. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
decision of this Court in Anil Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2024 (1)
MPLJ 236 and Sakhi Gopal Dixit Vs. Board of Revenue and Another, 2010
(1) MPLJ 369 to contend that if there is no opposition to the execution of the
will, mutation can certainly be directed as the will is not disputed. However,
in the present case, the will in question has been specifically disputed by
respondents No.1 to 3. Had they been noticed by the Naib Tehsildar, they
would have submitted their objections before him itself. They have in any
case done the same before the Sub Divisional Officer. In the judgments
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the will in question
had never been challenged at any stage hence it was held that mutation on its
basis can be directed. However, the facts of the present case are different
hence the petitioner does not get any benefit from the aforesaid judgments.
Moreover, in Anand Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2025 SCC
Online MP 977 the Full Bench of this Court has held that in case of a dispute
as regards a will, mutation on its basis cannot be directed and the proper
remedy in that case is to approach the competent Civil Court.
06. In the present case also, since the alleged will executed in favour
of petitioner No.1 has been disputed by respondents No.1 to 3 mutation on its
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31102
4 WP-564-2025
basis has rightly been declined by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as by
the Additional Commissioner, in whose orders no infirmity is found. As
observed by them, the petitioners would be free to approach the competent
Civil Court. Thus, affirming the impugned orders, the petition is found to be
devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
