IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 4460 of 2012 HARNAM SINGH AND OTHERS Versus GOVIND SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Upendra Yadav - Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3.

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.1,2 & 3 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 3 in respect of land bearing survey No.16A admeasuring 1.829 hectare situated at village Pandau by one Smt. Ramkunwar Bai, 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 3. 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, 2 & 3. The said objection filed by the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 was rejected by the SDO vide order dated 13.12.2011 and the matter was fixed for final arguments. Thereafter, the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 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 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, 2 & 3 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 quashment of the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by the revisional authority with a direction to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. The counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that non-joinder of necessary parties is a non-curable defect and therefore, at this stage, the petitioners cannot be permitted to implead the remaining parties as respondents before the first appellate authority.

5. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel