This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has

been filed against the order dated 31.08.2019 passed by Additional

Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa, Link Court Satna in Case No.

217/Appeal/2007-08.

Since the controversy revolves in a very narrow campus,

therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the facts of the case in detail.

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.

Subsequent thereto, various litigations took place and ultimately,

the Panch Faisla was not made a Rule of Court on the ground of

3 M.P. No. 5418/2019

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 Vs. 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.

4 M.P. No. 5418/2019

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