[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rampal Singh vs Ummed Singh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11604
1 WP-11362-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11362 of 2026
RAMPAL SINGH
Versus
UMMED SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 20.11.2023 passed
by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena in Appeal No.
115/2022-23, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents has been
allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Tehsildar for
reconsideration.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land bearing
Survey No. 1327, admeasuring 5.665 hectares, was jointly owned and
possessed by the petitioner and the respondents. With a view to obviate any
future disputes, the parties arrived at a mutual understanding to partition the
said property and, in furtherance thereof, an application under Section 178 of
the M.P. Land Revenue Code was duly filed before the competent authority.
Upon receipt of the said application, notices were issued to all concerned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11604
2 WP-11362-2026
parties in accordance with law. Those who intended to contest or participate
appeared before the authority, and publication was also effected as per the
prescribed procedure. After obtaining the requisite report and being duly
satisfied with the compliance of statutory requirements, the Tehsildar
proceeded with the matter. As the parties present submitted the fard batwara
reflecting their consent, the same was accepted, and a final order dated
02.11.2021 was passed accordingly. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
respondents preferred a first appeal on the ground that the order had been
passed without affording them proper notice. However, the said appeal came
to be dismissed by order dated 21.09.2022. Thereafter, the respondents
preferred a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which has
been partly allowed by the impugned order dated 20.11.2023, directing
reconsideration of the partition by taking into account factors such as utility,
fertility, and quality of the land. The Additional Commissioner, in paragraph
7 of the impugned order, has observed that the publication was not properly
conducted and did not bear the signatures of the interested parties, and on
this premise, the orders passed by the Tehsildar as well as the Sub-Divisional
Officer have been set aside.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that a plain and
meaningful reading of Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code clearly
envisages issuance of notice to interested parties followed by publication,
thereby inviting objections, if any. In the absence of objections, the authority
may proceed to call for the fard batwara and, upon due satisfaction may
accord its approval. In the present case, notices were duly issued to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11604
3 WP-11362-2026
respondents, who, despite service, chose not to appear before the authority,
resulting in the proceedings being conducted ex parte against them. The
parties who appeared participated in the proceedings and consented to the
partition, their names were duly recorded. In such circumstances, the
findings recorded in the impugned order are contrary to the material
available on record and suffer from patent illegality. Consequently, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
present petition, challenging a remand order, is not maintainable inasmuch as
no rights of the parties have been finally adjudicated or crystallized. It is
contended that the impugned order merely remits the matter for fresh
consideration and affords an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, and
therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anant Singh and
Another Vs. Govind and Others, reported in 1999 RN 99, has held that a writ
petition against an order of remand is ordinarily not maintainable as no final
rights of the parties are determined by such an order. It has been observed
that the parties retain the liberty to agitate their respective claims before the
authority to whom the matter has been remanded.
7. In the present case, the Additional Commissioner has allowed the
appeal, set aside the orders passed by the Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional
Officer, and remitted the matter to the Tehsildar for fresh adjudication after
affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and considering relevant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11604
4 WP-11362-2026
factors such as utility, fertility and quality of the land.
8. In view of the settled legal position and considering that the
impugned order is one of remand, whereby no rights of the parties have been
conclusively determined, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition
is not maintainable and lacks substance. Accordingly, the petition stands
dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
