1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard.

2. Petitioners along with other family members moved Tahsildar Mauganj with an application under section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, for partition of land admeasuring 15.61½ acre of Khasra Nos.412 K/1/6/9/ 1 K/8/1, 19/2 K, 20/1, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33/1, 34/1, 36/1, 36/2, 44/2, 46, 46/1, 48/1, 52/2, 55/1, 60/1, 22/62/1, 40/63/1 situated at village Jamai. By order passed on 20.7.2007 the property stood partitioned. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order filed an appeal on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed. The appellate authority by order dated 9.11.2010 set aside the partition order on the finding that the procedure was not followed. It found:-

^^mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdksa ds }kjk izLrqr fyf[kr rdZ dk voyksdu fd, tkus ds mijkar vihy izdj.k dk rFkk vihy izdj.k esa layXu v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds izdj.k dk voyksdu ,oa ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds izdj.k ds voyksdu ls ik;k tkrk gS fd /kkjk 178 ds rgr mn~?kks"k.kk tks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gS] ml ij ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj ugha cus gq, gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds izdj.k esa vukΠx.kksa dh }kjk tokcnkok tks fnukad 30-5-2007 dks is'k gS] ml ijk leLr i{kdkjksa ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA vihy izdj.k esa layXu vihyk/khu Hkwfe [kaΠuaΠ20@1 jdck 1-045 gsΠHkwfe dk [kljk iaplkyk o"kZ 2006&2007 dh Nk;kizfr tks layXu gS] mlds voyksdu ls ik;k tkrk gS fd [kljk ds dkye uaΠ3 esa Jherh cEik nsoh cxSjg o'k uaΠ4@2@d@1 ntZ gS] rFkk dkye uaΠ12 esa 'kkldh; Hkou nsojh ntZ vfHkys[k gS] mDr Hkwfe dks Hkh caVokjk iqYyh esa Mkydj vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr vk/kkjksa ls Li"V gksrk gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 178 caVokjk fu;eksa ds rgr u rks mn~?kks"k.kk dk fof/kor izdk'ku djk;k x;k vkSj u gh leLr i{kdkjksa ds lgefr ds vk/kkj ij caVokjk iqYyh gh dCts ds vk/kkj ij rS;kj djkbZ xbZ vkSj uk gh gYdk iVokjh ds }kjk rS;kj dh xbZ caVokjk iqYyh ij izfrijh{k.k gh djk;k x;k] uk gh leLr lg[kkrsnkjksa dks lquokbZ o lk{; dk leqfpr volj gh fn;k x;kA ,slh fLFkfr ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr caVokjk vkns'k caVokjk fu;eksa ds fo#) gksus ls fLFkj j[kk tkuk mfpr ugha gSA^^

3. Second appeal preferred there against was also dismissed on 7.1.2013. Where against the respondent filed a revision under section 50 of 1959 Code. The Board reversed the order by the appellate authorities on a finding that no evidence was led before appellate authority to establish the fact that forged thumb impression of appellant No.4 was obtained. The Board also took note of the fact that even a complaint case filed by the present petitioner alleging forgery as to thumb impression was dismissed.

4. The Board also found that other members of the family on the basis of said partition have sold their land. The Revenue Board found:

^^5- rglhy U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k ns[kus ls fofnr gksrk gS fd rglhy U;k;ky; esa caVokjk vkosnui= vkosnd rFkk vukosnd ØŒ 1 ls 4 }kjk la;qDr #i ls izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr vihy esa vihykFkhZ@vukosnd us vkosnui= esa vkosnd@vihykFkhZ ds QthZ gLrk{kj rFkk vihy ØŒ 4 dk QthZ vaxwBk gksuk vafdr fd;k gS] fdUrq bl laca/k esa dksbZ Hkh izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj uk gh vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa us vius vkns'kksa esa vkosnui= ij QthZ gLrk{kj ,oa QthZ vaxwBk gksuk fu/kkZfjr fd;k gSA vkosndx.k }kjk U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh] izFke Js.kh eÅxat ftyk jhok ds vkns'k fnukad 25-2-2014 dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi dh QksVks izfr izLrqr dh xbZ gSA blds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd vukosnd jktsUnzdqekj nqcs }kjk ifjokn i= HkkŒnŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 147] 120ch] 420] 467 468] 471 rFkk 404 ds varxZr LovftZr ifjokni= esa mfYyf[kr laifÙk dks muds QthZ gLrk{kj vaxwBk fu'kkuh yxkdj rglhy esa ukekarj.k djkus ls izLrqr fd;k x;k ftls U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh }kjk [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA iVokjh gYdk }kjk caVokjk iqYyh lgefr ,oa ekSds ij LFky fujh{k.k dj rS;kj dh x;h gSA vukosnd ØŒ 1 ls 3 ds vykok vU; fdlh Hkh lg[kkrsnkj] ftuds caVokjk iqYyh ij lgefr ds gLrk{kj dh x;h gS] blfy;s bl vk/kkj ij vih