The main legal point established is that in mutation proceedings, the Tehsildar is obligated to follow due process, including issuing notices to interested parties and conducting proceedings in the prescribed manner.

1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the case of the petitioner is as under:-

The petitioner is the owner of land along with other family members. The land is in Survey No. 697/02 min area 10141 hectare. A Power of Attorney was executed by the petitioner in favour of Hemsingh, whereby he was authorised to look after the land, but no authority for alienating the land was given to him. This Power of Attorney was also subsequently cancelled. Hemsingh alienated the land in the name of his own son and some other persons. The son of Hemsingh, i.e., Balveer Singh (respondent No.3) and other persons got their names mutated in the revenue record. No information is given to the petitioner in the mutation proceedings before recording the names of respondents in the revenue record. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the said action of the Tehsildar preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) bearing Appeal No. 99/05. The appeal aforesaid was filed by all the owners of the land and the SDO after hearing the parties by order dated 24-5-2006 allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation order made in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The matter was remitted back for affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and enquiry was directed to be conducted. Against the SDO's order dated 24-5-2006 (Annexure P-4), a revision was filed by respondent No. 1-Chatur Singh. The other respondents did not file any revision. The Additional Collector by order dated 30-8-2007 dismissed the revision with a direction to the Tehsildar to afford opportunity to the parties and pass a fresh and reasoned order. Against the order of Additional Collector, a revision was filed by respondent No.1. This revision was allowed and orders of SDO and Additional Collector were set-aside. The petitioner preferred a revision against this order of Additional Commissioner before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by impugned order (Annexure P-1), dated 5-7-2012 dismissed the revision of petitioner. This petition is filed against the orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2), whereby the revision of respondent No.1 was allowed by Additional Commissioner and the revision of the petitioner is rejected by the Board of Revenue.

2. Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that as per Section 110 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, it was obligatory on the part of Tehsildar to issue notices to all persons, who may be interested in the matter. He submits that as per rules made under the Code also, the advertisement and notices are required to be issued/published in a particular manner. The petitioner was a necessary party and was very much interested being the owner of the land, but he was not heard by the Tehsildar, which vitiates the entire proceedings. By placing heavy reliance on Page 8 of the rejoinder, it is stated that the document makes it crystal clear that in the record of the Tehsildar only one document, i.e., advertisement is enclosed and no other document finds place, which shows that no notices have been issued to the person interested. He further submits that no material is available to show that advertisement was fixed in the places it is required to be fixed as per the provisions of MPLRC and rules made thereunder. By relying on various documents, he submits that Power of Attorney is given to Hemsingh for a limited purpose and no right was given to him to sell the property.

3. Per contra, Shri K.S. Tomar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, supported the orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2). Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submit that as per Section 111 of MPLRC, the remedy for the petitioner is to file a civil suit. The petitioner has already chosen to file a civil suit and accordingly, no case is made out for interference by this Court. They relied on Sections 115 and 116 of the MPLRC and judgments