[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Singh vs Rajendra Singh (Dead),Th: ... on 19 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6494
1 WP-1373-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1373 of 2012
BHARAT SINGH
Versus
RAJENDRA SINGH (DEAD),TH: LRS.SMT.MAYA DEVI
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Braru - Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents, though served/represented.
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 07.12.2011 passed
by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, allowing the revision
preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 5 whereby, the order passed by the
Tehsildar on 28.05.2002 granting patta of the government land bearing
Survey No.425/1 admeasuring 2.28 hectares to the petitioner has been set
aside and the order dated 5.7.2010 passed by the SDO (Revenue) Gohad,
District Bhind dismissing the first appeal preferred by the respondents is also
set aside.
2. The petition also challenges the order dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure
(P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Division Gwalior, M.P. whereby, the
revision preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been
rejected.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6494
2 WP-1373-2012
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as
under:-
3.1 The petitioner herein claiming himself to be a landless person
was allotted the land bearing Survey No.425/1 admeasuring 2.28 situated at
village Chekuri by the Tehsildar vide order dated 28.05.2002. The aforesaid
settlement made in favour of the petitioner was challenged by the
respondents No.1 to 5 in an appeal before the SDO, which was rejected vide
order dated 5.7.2010 and the order of the Tehsildar was maintained. Still
aggrieved, the respondents No. 1 to 5 challenged the aforesaid order in a
revision before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena which was
allowed vide order dated 07.12.2011 and the second revision preferred by the
petitioner against the aforesaid order has been rejected by the Board of
Revenue vide order dated 21.12.2011. These are the orders under challenge
in the instant writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
Tehsildar, after following the due process of law and after being satisfied that
the petitioner was a landless person and was entitled for grant of patta,
passed the order dated 28.05.2002. The aforesaid finding was affirmed by the
SDO while passing the order dated 5.7.2010 thereby rejecting the appeal
preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 5. The learned counsel submits that the
Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena has interfered into the aforesaid
order in the revision filed by the respondents No. 1 to 5 on the ground that
the due procedure as contemplated was not followed by the Tehsildar
inasmuch as proper publication of notice in the village was not made and all
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6494
3 WP-1373-2012
persons entitled for grant of patta were not made aware. He further submits
that the second ground on which the revision was entertained and allowed
was that the wife of the petitioner was already in receipt of patta and after
alienating the patta land, the petitioner again claimed himself to be landless.
He submits that both the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner
are contrary to the findings recorded by the first appellate authority. He
further submits that even otherwise, in case any procedural irregularity was
noticed by the revisional authority then, the matter ought to have been
remanded for holding the inquiry afresh instead of allowing the revision in
its entirety and setting aside the order of settlement in favour of the
petitioner. He submits that the second revision preferred by the petitioner has
been mechanically rejected without taking into consideration the merits of
the case.
5. The records of the case indicate that though the respondents are
represented but, none appeared for them when the matter was called on
20.08.2025, 19.09.2025, 07.11.2025 and 06.01.2026. In order to afford one
opportunity to the respondents, the matter was adjourned on 06.01.2026.
Today, when the matter is taken up, none appears for the respondents nor any
reply on their behalf is filed.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. In the given facts and circumstances of the case as narrated
hereinabove, this Court finds much force in the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in case, any procedural
irregularity was noticed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6494
4 WP-1373-2012
then the matter ought to have been remitted to the Tehsildar for holding the
inquiry afresh instead of allowing the revision in its entirety and setting the
allotment made in favour of the petitioner.
7.12.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena
and the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue stands
modified to the limited extent and the matter stands remanded to the
Tehsildar for holding an inquiry afresh into the entitlement of the petitioner
for grant of patta at the relevant time.
8. In view of the above, the order dated 07.12.2011 passed by the
Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena and the order dated 21.12.2011
passed by the Board of Revenue stands modified to the limited extent and the
matter stands remanded to the Tehsildar for holding an inquiry afresh into
the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of patta at the relevant time. On
production of certified copy of the order passed today in the instant writ
petition within a period of one month from today, the Tehsildar shall decide
the issue of entitlement of the petitioner for grant of patta at the relevant time
afresh in accordance with law and by affording an opportunity of hearing to
all concerned. Looking to the fact that there is an interim order in favour of
the petitioner passed by this Court in operation since 22.02.2012, the same
shall continue to remain in operation till the final decision is taken by the
Tehsildar.
9. It is further made clear that in case the order passed today in the
instant writ petition is not produced before the Tehsldar by the petitioner
against acknowledgement within a period of one month from today, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6494
5 WP-1373-2012
interim protection shall automatically stand vacated.
10. Needless to emphasize that it shall be open for the Tehsildar to
consider and examine the entitlement of the petitioner independently on
merits.
11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
