Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnu vs Ram Murti on 29 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27225
1 WP-2005-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 29th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2005 of 2012
VISHNU
Versus
RAM MURTI
Appearance:
Shri Madhur Bhargava - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Shailendra Dwivedi- Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India claims following relief:-
"That, in view of the facts and grounds mentioned in the writ
petition and further in view of the documents annexed hereto,
the humble petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition quashing/setting
aside the impugned orders (Annexure P/1, P/5 to P/7) passed
by learned Revenue Courts and kindly restore the order dated
16.10.2000 (Annexure P/3) in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as under:-
2.1 The petitioners herein, on the strength of Will dated 18.08.1997
executed in their favour by their father Madanlal in terms of provisions
contained in M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, sought the mutation of lands
bearing Survey No.36 area 0.314 hectare, 50 area 0.251 hectare, 59 area
7.765 hectare, 66 area 0.010 hectare, 68 area 0.230 hectare and 73 area 6.741
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27225
2 WP-2005-2012
hectare total area 15.311 hectare situated at village Barkhedi. Their
application for mutation was initially allowed by the Tehsildar, Jamner.
However, the aforesaid order was set aside in an appeal filed by the
respondents and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar, Jamner for
consideration afresh. On being remanded, the Tehsildar Jamner reconsidered
the matter and again allowed the mutation application filed by the petitioners
in respect of land in question vide order dated 16.10.2000.
2.2 The appeal preferred by the respondents against the said order
dated 16.10.2000 came to be allowed by the SDO Raghogarh, Guna vide
order dated 7.6.2001 and the matter was again remanded to the Tehsildar for
consideration afresh. The aforesaid remand order dated 7.6.2001 was
unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners before the Collector, District
Guna, the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, Division Gwalior and the
Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh Gwalior and vide orders dated
17.03.2003, 20.11.2003 and 21.12.2011, the proceedings filed by them was
dismissed and the petitioners remained unsuccessful. The Board of Revenue
vide order dated 21.12.2011 while dismissing the proceedings filed by the
petitioners observed that since the mutation is sought on the basis of Will, the
petitioners are at liberty to ventilate their grievance before the trial Court.
These are the orders impugned in the instant writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the
interregnum, the respondents themselves filed a civil suit bearing
No.7A/2003 before the Civil Judge, Class I, Raghogarh, District Guna
wherein, the Will dated 18.08.97 executed in favour of the petitioners was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27225
3 WP-2005-2012
questioned and a specific issued was framed by the learned trial Court as to
"whether, the petitioners have succeeded in getting their names mutated in
respect of the land in question on the basis of forged and fraudulent Will?"
The civil suit filed by the respondents came to be dismissed by the learned
trial Court vide order dated 31.10.2006 wherein, a specific finding was
recorded in para 17 that the Will on the basis whereof, the land in question
have been mutated in favour of the petitioner is not forged and fabricated.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits
that the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006 has been affirmed
by the District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No.66-A/2006 vide judgment
dated 22.6.2007 as the appeal preferred by the respondents was dismissed.
He submits that now since the Will has also been approved by the competent
civil court, the mutation made in their favour by the Tehsildar vide order
dated 16.10.2000 does not warrant any interference and the orders passed by
the SDO, Collector, Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue
deserve to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents opposes the petition and submits that the Board of Revenue has
recorded a finding that the mutation of the land in question is to be made in
the favour of legal heirs of the deceased Madanlal. However, he is unable to
dispute the fact that the civil suit filed by the respondents has been dismissed
and the first appeal therefrom has also been dismissed.
6. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27225
4 WP-2005-2012
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
8. In view of the admitted fact that during the pendency of the
proceedings before the revenue authorities, the Will in question executed in
favour of the petitioners stands approved by the civil court vide judgment
dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I Raghogarh, District
Guna in Civil Suit No.7A/2003 (Annexure P/9) as well as by the first
appellate court vide judgment dated 22.06.2007 passed by the District Judge,
Guna in Civil Appeal No.66A/2006 (Annexure P/10), this Court is of the
considered opinion that the aforesaid findings of the civil court shall prevail
over the findings recorded by the revenue authorities and therefore, the
mutation made in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 16.10.2000 on
the strength of Will is not required to be disturbed.
9. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the
petition is allowed and the orders impugned in the petition dated 7.6.2001,
20.112003 and 21.12.2011 are hereby quashed. No order as to cost.
10. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
