[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Susheela Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1 WP-10378-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10378 of 2026
SMT SUSHEELA DEVI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"7.1 यह क, रे पोडे ट मांक-1 लगायत 4 को आदे िशत कये जाने क
कृ पा कर क, भूिम सव मांक-436 के स बंध म तहसीलदार रे पोडे ट
कमांक-4 ारा बटबारा आदे श दनांक-22/12/2024 एवं बटांकन आदे श
दनांक-26/09/2024 तथा अनु वभागीय अिधकार रे पोडे ट कमांक-3
ारा अपील म आदे श दनांक 15/09/2025 पा रत करने म नहर के
स बंध म म० ० शासन के हतो को एवं यािचकाकतागण के हत को
अनदे खा कया गया ह इसिलय उ आदे श के या वयन को अपा त
कया जाकर उ आदे शो क पुनः समी ा/सुनवाई विध क स यक्
या के अनुसार क जाव।
7.2 यह क, रे पोडे ट कमांक-1 लगायत 4 को आदे िशत कये जाने क
कृ पा कर क, पुनःसमी ा/सुनवाई के दौरान यािचकाकतागण को सुनवाई
का यु यु अवसर दान कया जाव तथा यािचकाकतागण क
दावा/आप का िनराकरण विध क स यक् या के तहत कया
जाव।
7.3 यह क, अ य कोई सहायता जो माननीय यायालय यािचकाकता के
हत म यायोिचत समझे रे पोडे स के व दलाई जाव।"
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the agricultural
lands bearing erstwhile Survey Nos. 311/1 and 340, situated at Village
2 WP-10378-2026
Maliyapura, Tehsil Sewda, District Datia, which upon settlement
proceedings have been renumbered as Survey No. 436 admeasuring 5.57
hectares and Survey No. 470 admeasuring 5.00 hectares respectively,
comprising a total area of 10.57 hectares, are ancestral properties. The said
lands were inherited by the petitioners' father, Late Shri Vanshgopal, from
his father, Late Shri Jagannath, and thus the petitioner, being a coparcener,
has a legitimate and equal right, title, and interest therein.
3. It is further submitted that Late Shri Vanshgopal passed away in
April, 1999, and his wife (mother of the petitioner) had predeceased him.
One Rambabu, though originally part of the family, had been adopted by
Vanshgopal's brother, Shri Chukhar, and therefore ceased to have any claim
in the estate of Late Shri Vanshgopal. Consequently, upon the demise of Late
Shri Vanshgopal, the only surviving Class-I legal heirs were the petitioner
and his brother, Late Shri Ram Milan, who became entitled to inherit the
property in equal shares in accordance with law. It is pertinent to submit that
during his lifetime, Late Shri Vanshgopal neither effected any partition of the
aforesaid ancestral property nor executed any testamentary disposition (will)
in favour of any person. Therefore, the revenue records ought to have been
mutated in the names of the legal heirs in equal shares. During his lifetime,
Late Shri Ram Milan had been regularly providing the petitioners with their
due share in the agricultural produce, thereby acknowledging the petitioners'
co-ownership and lawful entitlement. However, after the demise of Late Shri
Ram Milan on 23.08.2024, when the petitioners approached the respondents
in January, 2025 for his rightful share in the agricultural produce, the legal
3 WP-10378-2026
heirs of Late Shri Ram Milan (Respondent Nos. 6 to 9) not only refused to
provide the same but also denied the petitioners' lawful rights in the ancestral
property. Upon such denial, the petitioners, being constrained, obtained
certified copies of the revenue records, wherein it came to light that Late Shri
Ram Milan, in collusion with revenue officials, had managed to fraudulently
record his name exclusively over the entire property of Late Shri Vanshgopal
in the Khasra entries for the year 1999. The said entry purports to be based
on Partition Register No. 9, Order dated 27.05.1999; however, the said order
is wholly fictitious, forged, and non-existent. In this regard, the
communication dated 10.09.2025 issued by the Office of the Tehsildar,
Tehsil Sewda, District Datia, addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sewda, assumes great significance, wherein it has been categorically stated
that "Mutation Register No. 9, Order dated 27.05.1999 is neither available in
the record room nor has it ever been deposited." This clearly establishes that
the Khasra entry made in the year 1999 on the basis of the said alleged order
is fraudulent and void ab initio.
4. It is further submitted that under the provisions of the Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, there exists no procedure for effecting
mutation on the basis of such a partition register in the manner alleged,
rendering the entire mutation process illegal and without jurisdiction.
Aggrieved by the said fraudulent and illegal mutation, the petitioners have
preferred Appeal No. 69/2024-25 before the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Seondha, District Datia, which is presently pending adjudication. Thus, it is
prayed that direction may be issued to Sub-Divisional Officer, Seondha,
4 WP-10378-2026
District Datia to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioners as
expeditioulsy as possible.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has no objection, if
such directions are issued.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of
with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seondha, District Datia, to
consider and decide Appeal No. 69/2024-25 strictly in accordance with law,
expeditiously, and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order. The said authority shall afford due
opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and shall pass a reasoned and
speaking order after proper appreciation of the record. It is further observed
that the parties shall extend full cooperation for early disposal of the appeal
and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
