IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 9 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 844 of 2026 PRAKASH PATEL AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Hemant Kumar Namdeo - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

Shri Azad Krishna Bais - Advocate for respondent No.5 on Caveat.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

a. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of Certiorari by quashing/setting-aside the impugned Order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed in Case No. 0022/Review/2025-26 passed by Respondent No. 2 i.e. Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar (M.P.) and also dismissing the order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed in Revenue Case No. 967/B- 121/2019-20 passed by Respondent No. 2 i.e. Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar (M.P.) b. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to remand the matter back to respondent no. 2 for deciding afresh on merits taking into consideration that the civil suit which was pending has already been dismissed.

c. Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the controversy involved in the present petition pertains to recording of 10ft. wide path in the revenue records in column no.12 of khasra from the suit land recorded in present Nistar Patrak in compliance of the order dated 05.04.1988 passed in revenue case No.01A/73 year 1987-88 by Sub Divisional Officer, Sagar. The impugned order dated 03.07.2023 was passed without considering the fact that father of petitioners i.e. Babulal was expired way back on 05.05.2021 and respondent No.5 knowing this fact has not brought on record the legal representatives of Late Babulal on record and by hiding this fact maliciously obtained an order dated 03.07.2023 in his favour against the dead person. Thereafter, present petitioners preferred a review petition under Section 51 read with Section 32 of MPLRC raising the grounds as mentioned above and also contended that a suit was filed by respondent No.5 and other agriculturists in which their application for temporary injunction was dismissed and ultimately on 05.08.2024, the suit was dismissed for lack of plaintiff evidence on account of non-appearance of plaintiff and his advocate. The aforesaid review petition was dismissed by respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 30.10.2025 affirming its order dated 03.07.2023 without considering the grounds raised in the memo of review petition and came to a conclusion that the order of civil Court is binding upon the revenue court without even considering that the suit was dismissed on 05.08.2024 which is binding on revenue Court. Hence, this petition has been filed. 3 . It is pointed out that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was against a dead person as Babulal Patel has already expired on 05/05/2021 and the final order was passed on 03/07/2023. It is submitted that the order against a dead person is non est in the eyes of law.

Therefore, this petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has submitted that after passing of the order by the Additional Commissioner, a review petition was filed, wherein all the legal representatives were brought on record and thereafter, after hearing all the parties, the impugned order dated 30/10/2025 has been passed. It is contended that during the hearing of review petition, an opportunity of hearing was granted to all the legal representatives.

5. Learned State counsel has also supported the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.5. It is further pointed out that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners as they were already heard during the proceedings of review petition.

6. Heard learne