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

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 8345 of 2016 CHANDRABHAN SINGH Versus RAMKRIPAL SINGH Appearance:

Shri Utkarsh Tikhe - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Mahesh Goyal - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, whereby a revision preferred by the respondent challenging the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaura, District Morena, condoning the delay in filing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, has been allowed and the said order has been set aside.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

3.1. The respondent herein, on the strength of a will executed by Gajsingh (brother of uncle of the respondent) dated 25.11.1964, moved an application for mutation over 1/3rd share of land bearing Survey No.193, admeasuring 0.63 hectare, situated at Village Sukhpura, Tehsil Jaura, District Morena. The said application came to be allowed by the Tehsildar, Pargana Jaura, District Morena vide order dated 26.04.2007. The aforesaid order dated 26.04.2007 was thereafter challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaura, District Morena in the year 2014. Since there was a delay of about 7 years in filing the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay was also filed alongwith the appeal. Vide order dated 09.02.2016, the application filed by the petitioner, after considering the reply submitted by the respondent, was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer which was challenged in a revision by the respondent before the Board of Revnenue, Gwalior and the same was allowed vide order dated 06.10.2016. It is this order which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of mutation dated 26.04.2007 has been obtained by the respondent by playing fraud. The affidavit (Annexure P/3) of the petitioner herein was furnished in the mutation proceedings, wherein it was stated that the will was executed by one Ran Singh in the presence of the petitioner on 25.11.1964, whereas the date of birth of the petitioner itself is 01.02.1969, as is discernible from Annexure P/2. He submits that the petitioner was not aware of the mutation proceedings and therefore, he could not challenge the same within time and when the order came to his knowledge, the petitioner preferred an appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer rightly considered the submissions of the rival parties and allowed the said application vide order dated 09.02.2016 which ought not to have been interfered by the Board of Revenue.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that once the revenue authority has condoned the delay by taking into consideration the submissions of the parties, the Board of Revenue ought not to have reversed the said order, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123. He further submits that since the mutation order has been obtained by fraud, it is a nullity and limitation would not come in the way of the petitioner, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheikh Gulam vs. Additional Collector Khandwa and Others, vide order dated 22.09.2023 passed in W.A.No.1213/2023.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that no plausible reason has been assigned by the Sub-Divisional Officer while condoning the delay of seven years in the order dated 09.02.2016. He submits that in terms of Section 111 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, if