ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 31.8.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa, Link Court Satna in Case No.

217/Appeal/2007-08.

2. Since the controversy revolves in a very narrow campus, therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the facts of the case in detail.

3. It appears that one Panch Faisla was passed thereby dividing the shares of the predecessor of the parties. No application was filed for making it a Rule of Court. It is submitted that after 3 years of passing of the Panch Faisla, an application was filed under section 14 of the Arbitration Act. During the pendency of the said application, the Tehsildar passed an order under section 178 of the MPLR Code and on the basis of the Panch Faisla partition was done.

4. Subsequent thereto, various litigations took place and ultimately, the Panch Faisla was not made a Rule of Court on the ground of limitation and secondly, the writ petition filed by the Panchas against the order by which application for making the Panch Faisla as Rule of Court was dismissed as barred by time, was held to be not maintainable.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have moved an application for mutation of their name by ignoring the Panch Faisla and after various rounds of litigations, the Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa, Link Court Satna by the impugned order has held that the Panch Faisla cannot be treated as a waste piece of paper and thus, has rejected the application of mutation.

6. Challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa, Link Court Satna, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that where the Arbitration award/ the Panch Faisla was not made a Rule of Court, then the same cannot be relied upon for any purpose and it would not create any right in favour of the parties to the Arbitration.

7. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Others, reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1475.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Before entering into the controversy, this Court would like to consider the effect of order of partition passed by the Tehsildar. Undisputedly, an order of partition was passed and the same has not been challenged.

10. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that since the order of partition was passed on the basis of the Panch Faisla and as the said Panch Faisla has not been made a Rule of Court, therefore, it should not have been relied upon and thus, the order of partition passed by the Tehsildar is a void order, therefore, that will not frustrate the application filed by the petitioners for mutation of their names on the basis of joint sale deed by which the property in dispute was purchased by their predecessors.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

12. The moot question for consideration is as to whether any void order is liable to be set aside or anybody can avoid the said order by claiming that it is void in nature.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of M. Meenakshi v. Metadin Agarwal, reported in (2006) 7 SCC 470 has held as under :

“17. The competent authority under the 1976 Act was not impleaded as a party in the suit. The orders passed by the competent authority therein could not have been the subject-matter thereof. The plaintiff although being a person aggrieved could have questioned the validity of the said orders, did not chose to do so. Even if the orders passed by the competent authorities were bad in law, they were required to be set aside in an appropriate proceeding. They were not the subject-matter of the said suit and the validity or otherwise of the said proceeding could not have been gone into therein and in any event for the first time in the letters patent appeal.” (Underline supplied)

14. The Supreme Court in t