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

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 5063 of 2026 SEVARAM Versus DINESH RATHORE DEAD THROUGH LRS MU. MANJU BEVA DINESH RATHORE AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sunil Singh Rawat - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sheeraz Qureshi - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

ORDER

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, M.P. Gwalior, whereby, the revision preferred by the respondents challenging the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, has been allowed and the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, setting aside the mutation order dated

12.10.2011 passed by the Tehsildar, has been affirmed.

3. Brief facts as discernible from pleadings and the orders available on record indicates that on the strength of a Will dated 20.04.2007 executed by one late Shri Ram Sahai, the petitioner herein, moved the Tehsildar for mutation of land bearing survey No.613 admeasuring 0.570 hectare situated at village Bilhaiti. The Tehsildar finding the Will to be legally executed allowed the mutation application vide order dated 12.10.2011.

4. Respondents herein challenged the aforesaid order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Tehsildar in a first appeal before the Sub- Divisional-Officer, Revenue, Gwalior, Rural on the ground that prior to his death, the land in question was sold by late Shri Ram Sahai to them vide a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2004 and vide order dated 25.07.2005, the name of respondents was also mutated in the mutation register maintained by the Gram Panchayat. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents vide order dated 14.08.2015 by setting aside the order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Tahsildar. The petitioner herein thereafter preferred second appeal against the order dated 14.08.2015 which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 28.06.2018. The respondents thereafter preferred a revision against the said order before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 19.12.2025. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the mutation order was rightly passed in favour of the petitioner on the strength of the Will executed by Late Sri Ram Sahai. The Will was duly proved before the Tehsildar. The Sub-Divisional-Officer erred in interfering into the said order by allowing the First Appeal preferred by the respondents on the ground that a registered sale deed was executed in their favour on 22.07.2004. He submits that Additional Commissioner had rightly set aside the order passed by the SDO and the Board of Revenue could not have interfered in this order. He submits that the date of the proceedings of the revision pending before the Board of Revenue were not communicated to the petitioner by his counsel, and therefore, he could not participate in the proceedings before the Board of Revenue, and accordingly, the order passed by the Board of Revenue deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded.

5. The perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue indicates that the Sub-Divisional-Officer has placed reliance on the registered sale deed dated 22.7.2004 for allowing the first appeal preferred by the respondents for the mutation of the land in question. In the teeth of registered sale deed being in place, and not challenged before any Civil Court, the order of mutation could not have been passed on the strength of a Will. Recently, the full Bench 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 has held that in the event, the execution of Will is disputed, then revenue authorities may have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legality of the Will and in the sai