IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI ON July 29, 2024 WRIT APPEAL No. 699 of 2024 JAGDISH SHUKLA AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Santosh Agrawal provided counsel for the appellants.

Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents No. 1 and 2/State.

Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 12.

ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Rusia Appellants/petitioners have filed this appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the order dt. 31.10.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 25215/2021, whereby the Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order dt.03.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena (Madhya Pradesh), thereby allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dt.02.01.2020 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sab Division Sabalgarh, District Morena.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as follows:

(i) The appellants/petitioners submitted an application before Tahsildar, Tahsil Kailaras, District Morena under Section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, for batwara of agricultural land of various survey numbers totaling in number 11, area 5.989 hectares at 1/4 to 1/4 shares each. The application was registered, and the concerned Patwari prepared a fard batwara, distributing an equal share among all the co-sharers. The petitioners and appellants submitted objections to said fard batwara; thereafter, a second fard batwara report was obtained. Again, the appellants submitted an objection on June 23, 2018, which the appellants are denying. Thereafter, Tahsildar, Tahsil Kailaras, and District Morena passed the final order on August 13, 2018, accepting the second fard batwara.

(ii) The appellants/petitioners challenged the aforesaid order by way of appeal before SDO. The SDO vide order dated June 13, 2019, directed Tahsildar Kailaras to conduct spot inspection by Revenue Inspector and Mouja Patwari in presence of the parties and prepare fard batwara as per title and possession. Tahsildar submitted the report with Panchnama. After hearing both parties, SDO passed the order on November 29, 2019. Thereafter, the names of the appellants, petitioners, and others were mutated in the revenue record. The petitioners have grievances about survey No. 1264, which was given to respondent No. 3, i.e., the legal heir of Kedarlal; therefore, they preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner against the order dated November 29, 2019 passed by the SDO. Additional Commissioner vide order dated March 11, 2021, dismissed the appeal.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJEEV Thereafter, the petitioners and appellants preferred Writ Petition No. 25215/2021, which came to be dismissed by the Writ Court. Hence, this Writ Appeal is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has vehemently argued that no opportunity of hearing was given to them for submitting objection to the second fard batwara report. The first fard batwara report (Annexue P/3) and second fard batwara report (Annexure P/7) are identical. The Writ Court has wrongly recorded the finding that the petitioners submitted objection to the second fard batwara report.

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. From the record, it is evident that the petitioners and other respondents jointly submitted an application for partition of the joint family property. In the entire application, it is nowhere mentioned that the entire land be partitioned on the basis of the possession of the co-sharer on the spot. The parties wanted a partition by way of mutual settlement between them, as there was no dispute between them. According to them, all the parties are jointly owned and in p