IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 6029 of 2023

ANURAG MOHAN VARMA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Ravi Shankar Saini - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.

Shri Tarandeep Singh Ajmani - Advocate through VC with Shri

Monish Raghuwanshi, Advocate for the respondent no. 3.

ORDER reply denying the contentions made in the aforesaid application and contending that the disputed properties are not divided between the brothers of the deceased and without deciding the title, the property cannot be recorded in the name of the respondents. The petitioner has also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the application filed by the respondents. Respondent no. 3 Rajesh Verma filed reply to the application filed by the petitioner stating that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are not applicable and prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner. After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, the respondent no. 2 Nazul officer dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 23.07.2018. Being crestfallen, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Collector, District Chhindwara and after having heard the arguments of both the parties, learned Collector also dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner vide order dated 9.3.2020. Challenging the order dated 9.3.2020, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 44 (1) of the MPLR Code before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur which was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.2.2023.

This petition is directed challenging the order dated 9.3.2020

(Annexure-P/6) passed by the Additional Collector, District Chhindwara (MP), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule

11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

2 . The facts lie in narrow compass are that on 23.12.2016 an

application under Section 110 of the M.P.L.R. Code was filed by respondent no. 3 Rajesh Verma praying therein for mutation of names of the respondents no. 3 to 7 as well as his name in the revenue records on the basis of the Will which is said to be executed on 4.10.2008 by Late Shri Subhashchandra Verma, Advocate and also seeking partition 1/4th share of the suit land, before the Nazul Officer, Chhindwara. The petitioner filed

Thereafter, this petition is filed.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has raised an objection before the Nazul Officer, with respect to genuineness of the Will and the Will has been disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that once the Will in question is disputed by raising a suspicion, then Revenue authority was having no authority to pass the order of mutation. The said aspect was also not considered by Additional Commissioner and the impugned order has wrongly been passed. He has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Anand Choudhary vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online MP 977 and prayed for quashment of the impugned orders.

4 . Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions and argued in support of the impugned order. It is submitted that Tehsildar as well as Additional Commissioner have passed well reasoned orders and no interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned orders. The revenue authorities after going through the material on record has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC vide order dated 23.7.2018 and the Collector, Chhindwara vide order dated 9.3.2020 has confirmed the order dated 23.7.2018. The petitioner is well aware of all the facts and he is creating hurdles in the revenue proceedings without any valid reason, due to which, the application filed by the respondent no. 3 on 23.12.2016, cannot be d