¼1½ nÙkd && izkekf.kdrk && nÙkd ds vk/kkj ij foHkktu dk nkok jktLo vfèkdkfj;ksa dks nÙkd dh izkekf.kdrk dk fofu'p;u djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ughaA fjV ;kfpdk Ø-6695@lu~ 2013 fu.khZr fnukad 17-2-2021 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 5
¼2½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 178 && foHkktu dk vf/kdkj && ewy] iêsnkj }kjk nÙkd fy, tkus ds vk/kkj ij foHkktu dk nkok && nÙkd foys[k izLrqr ugha && ;kph us Lo;a dks ewy iêsnkj ds iq= ds :i esa of.kZr ugha fd;k && f[kyku flag ds iq= ds #i esa of.kZr && mlus ;g ugha crk;k gS fd ewy iêsnkj ls mldh fdl izdkj dh ukrsnkjh gS && mls foHkktu dk vf/kdkj ugha
&& vij vk;qDr }kjk foHkktu vkns'k Bhd gh vikLr fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 5 ls 7
¼3½ Hkw&jktLo lafgrk] 1959 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 178 && foHkktu ds fy, vko';d i{kdkj && ewy iêsnkj dk nÙkd iq= gksus ds vk/kkj ij foHkktu dk nkok && ewy iêsnkj dh iq=h vko';d i{kdkj gS && i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k && vko';d i{kdkj ds vla;kstu ds dkj.k foHkktu dk;Zokgh fof/k dh n`f"V ls nks"kiw.kZ gSA ¼iSjk 7
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx && vk{ksfir vkns'k esa vf/kdkfjrk dh =qfV ds vHkko esa gLr{ksi visf{kr ugha && ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼iSjk 8

(1) Adoption -- genuineness -- partition claimed on basis of adoption -- revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide genuineness of adoption. W.P. 6695 of 2013 decided on 17.2.2021 relied on. [Para 5

(2) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S.178 -- right to partition -- partition claimed on basis of adoption by original lessee -- adoption deed not produced -- petitioner has not described himself as son of original lessee -- described as son of Khilan Singh -- he has not pointed out in what manner he is related to original lessee

-- he has no right to partition -- partition order rightly set aside by Additional Commissioner. [Paras 5 to 7

(3) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M.P.) -- S.178 -- necessary party for partition -- partition party for partition -- partition claimed on basis of adoption by original lessee -- daughter of original lessee is necessary party -- not impleaded -- partition proceeding is bad in law because of non-joinder of necessary party. [Para 7

(4) Constition of India -- Art. 226 -- exercise of powers -- in absence of any jurisdictional error in impugned -- order -- no interference called for -- petition dismissed. [Para 8

ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Appeal No.18/Appeal/2012-13, by which the mutation of the name of the petitioner has been set aside.

2. According to the petitioner, the necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the original lessee had adopted the petitioner and, accordingly, an application for partition of land in dispute, i.e., Survey No.353/1/2 area 1.300 hectares was filed which was allowed by Tahsildar by order dated 24.6.2011. The respondent No.3, preferred an appeal before the Court of SDO, Nateran, District Vidisha which was dismissed by order dated 7.8.2012. Against the order of the SDO as well as Tahsildar, respondent preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, which has been allowed by order dated 10.12.2019 and the order of partition has been set aside by holding that neither the petitioner is the legal heir of the lessee nor he is in possession and title holder of the land in dispute and, accordingly, it was held that the order of partition dated 24.6.2011 passed by the Tahsildar is bad in law.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner failed to see that the petitioner was adopted by the original lessee and, therefore, the property was rightly partitioned by the Tahsildar by order dated 24.6.2011. It is further submitted that the SDO had rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground that Saroj Bai is also daughter of the original lessee Gorelal, who has not been impleaded as a party in the appeal, therefore, the appeal was bad in law on the