IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH st ON THE 31 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 37832 of 2024 UDHAM SINGH Versus KAMAL SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pavan Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ramrajya Singh Dangi, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].

ORDER

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally.

2. The instant writ petition was initially filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and was registered as M.P. No. 4383/2022. Subsequently, vide order dated 19/11/2024, the same was permitted to be converted in writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India and was re-numbered as W.P. No. 37832/2024.

3. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 17/08/2022 & 17/02/2022 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha and Additional Collector, District Vidisha M.P. respectively, whereby, the application under section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of partition dated 19/09/2018 passed by Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY the Tehsildar has been rejected and the revision preferred against the same has been rejected.

4. Brief facts leading to filing of the petition are that Kalluram, who was Bhumiswami of the land bearing survey No. 1228/1 situated at village kasba Sironj, District Vidisha admeasuring 0.448 hectares has moved an application under section 178-A of MPLRC, 1959 before the Tehsildar Sironj, District Vidisha seeking partition of the said lands amongst its legal heirs (private respondents). The said application came to be allowed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 19/09/2018. Since, the petitioner herein was also the legal heir of the Kalluram and was aggrieved by order dated 19/09/2018, he challenged the same in appeal under section 44 of MPLRC, 1959 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha.

5. Since there was delay of three years in filing of the appeal, a separate application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 was also filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, it was stated by the petitioner that he was not aware of passing of the order dated 19/09/2018. He learnt about passing of the order dated 19/09/2018 only for the first time on 26/07/2021 from the Halka Patwari and thereafter he preferred an appeal. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing of the application for condonation of delay.

6. The said application came to be rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha vide order dated 17/02/2022 on the ground that no sufficient reason has been assigned by the petitioner in his application seeking condonation of delay. Revision preferred by the petitioner against Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY the said order has also been dismissed vide order dated 17/08/2022 thereby affirming the order dated 17/02/2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sironj, District Vidisha. These said impugned orders are under challenge in the instant writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to section 178-A of MPLRC, 1959 submits that in terms of sub section (1) of section 178-A of MPLRC, 1959, the Bhumiswami, if he wishes to partition his agricultural land amongst the legal heirs during his life time, he may apply for the same under the provisions of section 178 of MPLRC, 1959 before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar after hearing legal heirs divide the holdings and apportionment the property in accordance with provisions under the Code. Learned counsel further submits that since petitioner was also one of the legal heirs, he was essentially required to be heard prior to passing of the order under section 178-A of MPLRC, 1959 for partition. By referring to the order dated 19/09/2018 passed by the Tehsildar, learned counsel for the pet