IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV st ON THE 1 OF APRIL, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 1635 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

1. PHOOL SINGH S/O SHRI TAUFAN SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 2. LAKHAN SINGH S/O TAUFAN SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 3. BHAIYALAL S/O TAUFAN SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 4. HATE SINGH S/O TAUFAN SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL ABOVENAMED PETITIONERS ARE R/O VILLAGE RAMNAGAR, TEHSIL RAGHOGARH DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. SMT. VIMLABAI D/O TAUFAN SINGH YADAV W/O AMAR SINGH YADAV, R/O VILLAGE PARKANA, TEHSIL RAGHOGARH, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI RISHIKESH BOHARE - ADVOCATE)

AND SMT. PRAYAGBAI D/O TAUFAN SINGH YADAV, W/O DAYAL SINGH YADAV, R/O VILLAGE SAWATKHEDA, THASIL RAGHOGARH, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI AYUSH GAUTAM - ADVOCATE)

MISC. PETITION No. 1636 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

Signature Not Verified

1. PHOOL SINGH S/O SHRI TAUFAN SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 2. LAKHAN SINGH S/O TAUFAN SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 3. BHAIYALAL S/O TAUFAN SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 4. HATE SINGH S/O TAUFAN SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL ABOVENAMED PETITIONERS ARE R/O VILLAGE RAMNAGAR, TEHSIL RAGHOGARH DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. SMT. VIMLABAI D/O TAUFAN SINGH YADAV W/O AMAR SINGH YADAV, R/O VILLAGE PARKANA, TEHSIL RAGHOGARH, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI RISHIKESH BOHARE - ADVOCATE)

AND SMT. PRAYAGBAI D/O TAUFAN SINGH YADAV, W/O DAYAL SINGH YADAV, R/O VILLAGE SAWATKHEDA, THASIL RAGHOGARH, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI AYUSH GAUTAM - ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

In M.P. No.1635/2021, petitioners assail the order dated 6.11.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.597/2019-20/appeal titled as Prayagbai vs. Phool Singh and others, in and by which, Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by SDO dated 5.12.2019 in Appeal No.10/2019-20/Appeal Mal.

2. In M.P. No.1636/2021, petitioners assail the order dated 6.11.2020 Signature Not Verified passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.596/2019-20/appeal titled as Prayagbai vs. Phool Singh and others, in and by which, Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by SDO dated 5.12.2019 in Appeal No.09/2019-20/Appeal Mal.

3. In both the matters parties and facts in issue are the same but property being different, orders have been passed separately and they have been challenged in the separate petitions. Thus, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts mentioned in M.P.No.1635/2021 are being considered.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

5 . Main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent Smt. Prayagbai had filed a partition case before Naib Teshsildar against the petitioners which was allowed without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Naib Tehsildar wrongly passed the partition order. No consent of the petitioners was obtained before making partition of land and fertile land has been given to respondent. A fard batwara was prepared by Patwari without intimation and consent of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that petition be allowed and order of SDO be restored in favour of the petitioners.

6 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that petitioners had filed objection against the partition application. Fard batwara was prepared according to Rule before independent witness under the intimation of the petitioners, SDO wrongly allowed the appeal and Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior passed the order in accordance with law.

Sig