IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 32560 of 2025 BRIJ KISHORE AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Yogesh Parashar Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 & 2/State.

Shri Pallav Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

O R D E R

(Delivered on this day of 27 ^th November, 2025)

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 07/04/2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, whereby, second appeal preferred by the respondents No. 3 to 5 under section 44(2) of MPLRC, 1959 challenging the order dated 19/09/2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gohad, District Bhind (first appellate authority) has been allowed and the order dated 19/09/2024 passed by the first appellate authority has been set aside, thereby, maintaining the mutation order dated 19/09/2017 passed by the Tehsildar, Gohad, District Bhind. The petition also challenges the order dated 13/05/2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, whereby, application seeking review of the order dated

17/04/2025 has been rejected.

3. The facts in brief to decide this petition are that respondents No. 3 to 5 alongwith one Bhuri Bai were owner of certain land situated in village Nibrol, Tehsil Gohad, District Bhind. After the death of Bhuri Bai, respondents No. 3 to 5 moved an application seeking mutation of the land in question in their favour before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar on the mutation register No. 38 passed an order dated 19/09/2017, whereby, land in question were mutated in favour of respondents No. 3 to 5. The petitioners claiming to have purchased certain part of the land in question through conditional sale deed dated 01/01/2001 (Annexure P/2) from Late Bhuri Bai and the respondent No. 3 filed, an appeal after a period of nearly five years against the order dated 19/09/2017 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Gohad, District Bhind under section 44(1) of MPLRC, 1959. Since, the petitioners were not party to the mutation proceedings culminating into the order dated 19/09/2017, they also moved an application seeking permission to file appeal. Since the appeal was also barred by limitation, a separate application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 was also filed by the petitioners along with their memo of appeal.

4. The appeal was preferred by the petitioners primarily on the ground that part of land in question was sold to the petitioners by the respondent No. 3 and Late Bhuri Bai in the year 2001 through conditional sale deed dated 01/01/2001, wherein, land in question were mortgaged in favour of the petitioners in lieu of loan of Rs. 1,38,500/- for a period of two years and in the event the loan is not repaid within the said period, land would get transferred in favour of the petitioners and they would be entitled to get their names mutated.

5. As per case of the petitioners since the loan was not repaid, the conditional sale deed stood implemented on expiry of period of two years and the land stood transferred in their names and, therefore, without impleading them as party respondents, the mutation order could not be obtained by respondents No. 3 to 5. The Sub Divisional Officer in first appeal proceedings drawn in case No. 66/appeal/2023- 24 vide order dated 31/07/2024 condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and thereafter vide order dated 27/08/2024 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners thereby remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for passing afresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

6. Aggrieved by said order dated 27/08/2024, respondents No. 3 to 5 preferred second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena which came to be allo