SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1775

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Khalk Singh – Appellant
Versus
Govind Singh – Respondent
WP 4365/2012



Advocates:
,J.P.S.Baghel,Arun Dudawat,Prashant Sharma,Sarvesh Sahrma,Devendra Sharma

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3502

1 WP-4365-2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

th

ON THE 28 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 4365 of 2012

KHALK SINGH & Ors.

Versus

GOVIND SINGH & Ors.

Appearance:

Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Upendra Yadav - Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5.

Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwah - Govt. Advocate for the respondents

No.6 to 8/State.

ORDER

1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 26.03.2012 passed in

revision preferred by the respondents No.1 to 5 by Additional Collector,

District Ashoknagar thereby, dismissing the first appeal preferred by the

petitioners against the order of mutation dated 30.04.2011 passed by the

Tehsildar, Mungawali. District Ashoknagar.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as

under:-

2.1 On the strength of a Will executed in favour of the respondents No.

1 to 5 in respect of lands bearing survey No.30/1 admeasuring 0.600 hectare,

survey No.31 admeasuring 0.282 hectare, survey No.50/1 admeasuring 1.045

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VANDANA

VERMA

Signing time: 30-Jan-26

10:43:00 AM

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3502

2 WP-4365-2012

hectare and survey No.15 admeasuring 5.769 hectare, situated at village

Pandau by one Devi Singh, an application under Sections 109 and 110 of

M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 seeking mutation of the land in question

came to be filed before the Tehsildar, Mungawali, District Ashoknagar. An

objection as regards maintainability of mutation proceedings on the basis of

a Will was taken by the petitioners herein, yet the Tehsildar vide order dated

30.04.2011 allowed the application filed by the respondents No. 1 to 5. An

appeal under Section 44(1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 came to

be filed by the petitioners herein before the SDO, Pargana Mungawali,

District Ashoknagar. In the said appeal, an application under Order 7 Rule 11

CPC seeking dismissal of the appeal on the ground of non-joinder of all

parties before the Tehsildar as party respondents in the appeal was filed by

the respondents No. 1 to 5. The said objection filed by the respondents No. 1

to 5 was rejected by the SDO vide order dated 13.12.2011 and the matter was

fixed for final arguments. Thereafter, the respondents No. 1 to 5 invoked the

revisional jurisdiction under Section 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code,

1959 before the Additional Collector, District Ashoknagar against the order

dated 13.12.2011 passed by the SDO which came to be allowed vide order

dated 26.03.2012 whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the

SDO has been dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.

It is this order which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner though places

reliance on the Full Bench judgment 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

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VANDANA

VERMA

Signing time: 30-Jan-26

10:43:00 AM

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3502

3 WP-4365-2012

to contend that once the Will set up by the respondents was disputed, the

Tehsildar could not have passed an order of mutation on the basis of such

disputed Will. He further submits that in any case, if the revisional authority

was of the opinion that the appeal suffered from the vice of non-joinder of

necessary parties, then at the best, an opportunity ought to have been granted

to the petitioners herein to implead the remaining parties as respondents in

the pending appeal, and the appeal itself could not have been dismissed in

entirety.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents No. 1 to 5 submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioners

has not been decided by the first appellate authority (SDO) on merits and the

only relief claimed by the petitioners in the instant writ petition is quashme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top