IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 7 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 7119 of 2023 BHAGWANDAS KESHRAWANI

Versus

SMT SAVITRI DEVI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Satya Prakash Mishra with Shri Falgun Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Abhay Shankar Pathak, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3.

Shri Brijendra Kumar Mishra and Shri Sunil Kumar Mishra- Advocates for the

respondent/intervenor.

ORDER drawn by the Tahsildar and vide order Annexure P/1 dated 18.10.2003, Tahsildar directed deletion of name of the original owners namely Chhote and Dukhi from the land in question and directed the land to be recorded in the name of State Government. In pursuant to the aforesaid order of Tahsildar, the Additional Collector passed an order dated 20.04.2009 granting the land in temporary lease to the present petitioner. Later on the present respondents filed an appeal before the SDO on 11-12-2011 against the order of Tahsildar dated 20-09-2003 on the grounds that they are the legal heirs of Chhote and Dhukhiram and the land has wrongly been dealt with under section 177 MPLRC by deeming that the bhoomiswami has expired without leaving any legal heirs. The said appeal was dismissed by the SDO on the ground of limitation and against the said order of dismissal of appeal on the grounds of limitation, the respondents approached the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner held that the subordinate authority has erroneously taken action in the matter under Section 177 MPLRC by erroneously stating that Bhoomiswami has died without known heirs and since the legal heirs of Bhoomiswami are there, therefore, he set aside the order of Tahsildar and directed mutation of name of legal heirs on the land in question by directing deletion of entry in the name of State Government on the land in question.

By way of present petition, challenge is made to the order dated

24.09.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby deciding revision of the present petitioner, certain directions have been issued in the matter by setting aside orders of Tahsildar, SDO, Additional Collector and Additional

Commissioner.

2. The facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of present petition

are that the present petitioner as well as the intervener are stated to be occupier of the land which was initially owned by one Chhote who had been granted permanent lease on the said land. An application was filed by the present petitioner on the assertion that the land was owned by Chhote, son of Budhu and Dukhiram, son of Pusu Sahu, both of whom left the land about 60 years ago and are stated to have died without leaving any legal heirs and therefore, the land be given in lease to the petitioner. Proceedings were

3. The present petitioner approached the Board of Revenue against the said order and by the impugned order Annexure P/6 dated 24.09.2021, the Board of Revenue has held that as per section 177(2) of MPLRC, the legal representative or any claimant who applies for restoration of land can move application to the Tahsildar within 3 years on which date the Tahsildar takes possession of the land and the Tahsildar can place such claimant in possession of the land. Therefore, the Board of Revenue directed that the claimant can move application under Section 177(2) MPLR before the Tahsildar and if the claim of the claimant i.e. the alleged legal heirs of the original holders of land is allowed, then their names be recorded otherwise the land shall be disposed of as per further provisions of Section

177.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Intervener had vehemently argued that since two civil suit had been filed in the matter, one by the intervener and one by the petitioner, though in the civil suit filed by the intervener, the present respondents are not parties, but in the suit filed by the present petitioner, the respondents are parties, therefore this court may direct consolidation of the civil suits and may se