Jurisdiction of revenue authorities in determining title over ancestral property and the appropriate forum for resolving property disputes

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dwivedi, J.

1. Since in the both these petitions the parties are same as also impugned order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal has been assailed, therefore, they are being decided concomitantly. For the purpose of convenience, facts of M.P. No. 2462/2020 are being taken up for consideration.

2. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed assailing the order dated 27.08.2020 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, whereby the said Authority by setting aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal, has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

3. To resolve the controversy involved in the case, necessary facts adumbrated in a nutshell are that:-

The petitioner, respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are sisters and brother. The property in question measuring 4.950 hectares (12.23 acres) previously recorded in the name of late Nandram, the father of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 5 to 7. Thereafter, the land has been allocated in new khasra number i.e. khasra Nos. 54/2, 167/1, 55, 56, 44, 38/1, 38/4, 75, 169/1, 84, 37/3, 45/1, 83 and 85 of Village Pura Manbhavan, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 had the coparcenary right over the land in question as the said land according to them was the ancestral land and as per the amendment made in Section 6(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, they acquired coparcenary right over the said land and despite that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 handing in glove with each other, deceitfully preferred an application dated 17.03.2003 (Annexure-P/1) of Section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for partition of the land in question before the Tahsildar, Bhopal wherein neither the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were impleaded as a party nor any notice was issued to them.

The Tahsildar, Bhopal, in turn, vide order dated 01.11.2004 (Annexure-P/2) corrected the revenue entries and recorded the names of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the revenue record. It is also stated in the petition that before correcting the revenue entries, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 had not been given any opportunity of hearing.

As per the petitioner, she had no knowledge about such correction made in the revenue record and on 26.09.2018, when she contacted the Tahsil Office, then she came to know about such correction and thereafter, by questioning the legality of the order passed by the Tahsildar on 01.11.2004, she preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal along with an application for condonation of delay. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal by setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Bhopal, allowed the appeal vide order dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure-P/4) and directed to record the name of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the revenue record along with respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal on 10.01.2020 was further assailed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal which was allowed by the said Authority vide order dated 27.08.2020 (Annexure-P/7) by setting aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal holding therein that while passing the order for correction in the revenue entries, no error was committed by the Tahsildar, Bhopal. It was further held by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal that the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal had entertained the appeal after such a long period of 14 years which was apparently time barred and no sufficient explanation for condoning the delay was given in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and despite that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, whereas the reasons assigned in the same did not constitute any su