IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

th

ON THE 24 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 44476 of 2025 ANIL KUMAR GUPTA Versus ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Appearance:

Shri YPS Rathore Advocate appeared for petitioner.

Shri Bhagwan Das Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER

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

2.The instant writ petition was earlier filed as M.P. No. 1558/2021 and vide order dated 07/11/2025, it was permitted to be converted as writ petition which has been registered as W.P. No. 44476/2025.

3.The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24/08/2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambah, District Morena, whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent against the mutation order dated 22/02/2014 passed by the Tehsildar was allowed. The petition also challenges the order dated 12/03/2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, whereby, the second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the SDO was rejected.

4.Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner on the strength of Will dated 18/08/2010 executed in his favour by one Smt.

Angooridevi moved an application under section 109 & 110 of MPLRC, 1959 seeking mutation of the land bearing survey No 1654/1 min rakba 415 sq.ft. situated at Mouza Kasba, Ambah, District Morena before Tehsildar, Porsa. The Tehsildar on the mutation register passed order dated 22/02/2014 allowing the said application. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent in first appeal under section 44(1) of MPLRC, 1959 before the Sub Divisional Officer,. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 22/02/2014 passed by the Tehsildar. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order under section 44(2) of MPLRC, 1959 before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, which was rejected vide order dated 12/03/2021.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Will was duly proved, the Sub Divisional Officer ought not to have interfered in the order passed by the Tehsidar and the second appeal preferred by the petitioner ought to have been allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. 6.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders and submits that it is now settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2025 (1) M.P.L.J. 646 that mutation on the basis of Will, in case, there is dispute cannot be done by the Tehsildar in exercise of powers under section 109 & 110 of MPLRC, 1959. Accordingly, he submits that petitioner is to establish his claim before the competent civil court and there is no illegality in the orders passed by the first and second appellate revenue authorities.

7.No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

8.Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record.

9.A perusal of the record and the petition indicates that the petitioner herein sought mutation of land in question on the strength of a joint will dated 18.08.2010 executed by Angooridevi in favour of the petitioner. The Tehsildar, after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, held the will to be duly executed and accordingly allowed the application for mutation filed by the petitioner.

10. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary Vs.

State of M.P. and others, reported in 2025 (1) M.P.L.J. 646, has held as follows in paragraph 75:

"75. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that Tehsildar cannot reject the application for mutation at threshold on the ground that it is based upon will. However, in view of detailed discussion made by us above, it