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

th

ON THE 25 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 1247 of 2025 PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS Versus SMT. SULEKHA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Brijendra Swaroop Sahu - Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Shri V.S. Choudhary - Government Advocate for respondent No.5/State.

ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 23.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur whereby an appeal preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has been allowed and the reasoned order passed by the Tehsildar dated 06.06.2023 has been set aside.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that they filed an application under Section 178 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The petitioners claimed 1/5 shares each for themselves stating that the respondents Nos.1 to 4 are also having 1/5 share in the suit lands i.e. respondents Nos.1 to 4 have 1/5 share cumulatively. Thus they have 1/20" share each. The respondents claimed 1/8 shares for each of the petitioners and respondents Nos.1 to 4. The application was allowed vide dated 06.06.2023 and a partition was given effect to. Thereafter, the revenue records have been corrected in terms of order of partition. The respondents Nos.1 to 4 filed an appeal questioning the order dated 06.06.2023 claiming 1/8 shares each. The respondents Nos.1 to 4 have also instituted a suit for partition claiming 1/8" shares each along with an application for grant of temporary injunction, which was rejected vide order dated 16.03.2023.The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 14.06.2024 dismissed the appeal taking note of the fact that the civil suit is pending between the parties. Aggrieved by order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the respondents Nos.1 to 4 preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner vide impugned order dated 23.12.2024 has reversed the well-reasoned orders dated 06.06.2023 and 14.06.2024. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order pointing out the fact that as a civil suit is pending adjudication, the revenue authorities should ceased to entertain any application even an application for partition. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner has rightly observed the aforesaid and set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has also supported the impugned order.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The record indicates that an application seeking partition was filed by the petitioners on 31.10.2022. It is the case of the petitioners that the originally the property belongs to one Jamna Prasad, who was having five legal heirs namely Pritam Singh, Munnalal, Kamta Prasad, Sumita Bai and Khusal Singh. The private respondents are legal heirs of late Munnalal. After death of Jamna Prasad, the property being a ancestral property devolved in the share of five legal heirs including Munnalal. It is his case that the private respondents can have share in the property of late Munnalal. They have filed the civil suit claiming 1/8 share in the property in question. The Additional Commissioner has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and only on the basis of the fact that civil suit is pending adjudication, the impugned order has been passed. It is correct to say that the revenue authorities are bound by any order passed by the civil courts. However, in the present case, the application for partition was filed prior to institution of the civil suit. The private respondents could have taken an injunction from the civil court, but their application for grant of injunction was rejected on 16.03.2023. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that said order was challenged before the Additional District