SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 26653

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
Smt. Geeta Bai – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MP 2006/2020



Advocates:
,Advocate General

Partition of land must be in accordance with the provisions of Section 178 of Land Revenue Code.

Headnote:

Fact of the Case:

A partition of lands measuring 2.573 Hect. at Village - Bilkishganj was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter, in appeal, petitioners approached the Addl. Commissioner.

Finding of the Court:

The Sub-Divisional Officer had declared the partition to be illegal and that has been affirmed by the Addl. Commissioner, Bhopal, Division Bhopal.

Ratio Decidendi: The partition was contrary to the provisions contained in Section 178 of Land Revenue Code as the Batwara Panji did not contain the signatures of all the co-sharers, no declaration was sought for published before the partition, and consent of all the co-sharers is not available on record.

Final Decision: The petitions are disposed of and the matter has been remanded to the Tehsildar for proper orders of partition in accordance with law.

ORDER

These petitions are filed being aggrieved of order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Bhopal Division Bhopal being aggrieved of the Case No. 206/Appeal/2014-15 passed on 14.06.2017 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilkisganj, Sehore, thereby the Sub-Divisional Officer had rejected the appeal against the orders of the Tehsildar.

Matter in short is that some lands measuring 2.573 Hect. at Village - Bilkishganj were subject matter of partition between the petitioners and respondents. That partition was put to challenge before the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter, in appeal, petitioners approached the Addl.

Commissioner.

The Sub-Divisional Officer had declared the partition to be illegal and that has been affirmed by the Addl. Commissioner, Bhopal, Division Bhopal. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that firstly the Batwara Panji does not contain the signatures of all the co-sharers. It is also mentioned that neither any declaration was sought for published before the partition nor consent of all the co-sharers is available on record and it is specifically noted that signatures of appellant No. 4 & 5 Sanju and Manju had put their signatures but other co-sharers had not put their signatures on Batwara Panji and therefore, partition being contrary to the provisions contained in Section 178 of Land Revenue Code has been set-aside.

There is no illegality in the said order, calling for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

Matter has been remanded to the Tehsildar, parties are free to appear before the Tehsildar and obtain proper orders of partition in accordance with law.

In above terms, these petitions are disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top