IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 19 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 4286 of 2025 JYOTIRAJ BALADAS AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Yogesh Singh Baghel along with Shri Praveen Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Nishant Yadav - P.L. for the respondent.

ORDER The present Misc. Appeal has been filed taking exception to the provision of section 47 of the Gurdian and Wards Act, 1890, challenging the order dated 27/02/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned first District Judge, Shahdol, District – Shahdol in MJC No. GW/07/2024 whereby the application of the appellant under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the "Act of

1956") has been rejected.

2. The short facts of the case are that the appellants have filed an application under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for grant of permission to sale the share of the minor daughter and the same is registered as MJC No. GW/07/2024. As per the averments of the application, the appellant no. 1 is the mother and natural guardian of appellant no. 2 minor daughter. The appellant no. 1 got married to Late Shri Ajay Kumar on 25/05/2012. The husband of the appellant no. 1 was working as Loco Pilot (goods) in Indian Railways and died on 25/05/2022 leaving behind wife and one minor daughter. During his lifetime, the husband of the appellant no. 1 had purchased a portion of land bearing Khasra no. 107/2/3 rakba 0.0150 hectare situated at Gram Sokhi, Patwari Halka Balpurva No.76, Tehsil Sohagpur, District – Shadol (MP). After the death of her husband, the appellant no. 1 was granted compassionate appointment at D.R.M officer Varanasi (U.P.). It is also stated in the application that after the death of the husband, the appellant along with her daughter has shifted and residing at Gram – Sonbarsa, Post -Ghathia, Tehsil – Mohhamadabad, District- Gazipur (UP).

3. The application further stated that the husband of the appellant no.

1 has purchased the said land and after his death, the names of the appellants were duly mutated in the revenue records. The appellant no. 1 wishes to sale the said land as the said land is 600 Km’s away from his present place of residence. It is also stated that there is no one in the family of the appellant no. 1 to look after the said land. There are all the chances of land being encroached by some anti-social elements. The permission to sale the land has been sought looking to the future aspects of the appellant no. 2 for her upbringing and education. To support contentions of the application, appellant no. 1 herself has stepped into witness box and her testimony is supported by PW – 2 Santosh Kumar, a family friend.

4. The learned court below after appreciating evidence brought on record and also giving a close look at the documents produced, has rejected the application on the ground that the minor daughter has equal share in the land and looking to her interest in the property, the sale can not be permitted.

This order dated 27/02/2025 is put to test by filing the present appeal.

5. I have heard Shri Yogesh Singh Baghel, learned Counsel for the appellant. The Learned Counsel has vehemently opposed the impugned order on the ground that the order is bad in the eyes of law. It was also argued that the said land is 600 Kms away from this present place of residence and the possibility of encroachment on the land cannot be ruled out due to lack of care. It was also argued that the said sale transfer of the land is in the interest of minor. Lastly, it is argued that the court below has not assigned any proper and cogent reason to dismiss the application of the appellants.

6. The learned Counsel for State Shri Nishant Yadav has supported the impugned order and submitted that the interest of the minor is paramount in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is also submitted