IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 2120 of 2026 PYRAELAL DHAKAD Versus BALIRAM DHAKAD AND OTHERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Amit Lahoti – Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Yash Sharma – Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.

Respondents No.5 to 10 (stated to be proforma respondents).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 17.02.2026 Pronounced on : 24.02.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

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

2. The instant writ petition was initially filed as M.P.6003/2023 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, pursuant to the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by this Court, the same was permitted to be converted into writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and thereafter, it has been registered as such.

3. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, allowing the second appeal preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 against the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub- Division Jaura, District Morena and remanding the matter back to Tahsildar for passing an order of mutation in respect of land in question on the basis of Hindu Succession Act, in accordance with law and after hearing all concerend and all successors.

4. The brief facts leading to filing of the petition are as under:

4.1. The petitioner, on the strength of a notarized Will executed by late Shri Puranmal Dhakad s/o Shri Giriwar Dhakad moved an application under Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “MPLR Code”) seeking mutation of the lands bearing Survey Nos.281/1, 289, 273/1, 287, 288/1, 290, 291, 573/1, 272 situated at Gopalpura, Tehsil Jaura, District Morena in his favour. The Tahsildar, after hearing all concerned, passed the order dated 30.09.2022 thereby, rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the Will produced by the petitioner is not proved and directed for mutation as per the provisons of the Hindu Succession Act.

4.2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner challenged the order dated 30.09.2022 in a first appeal under Section 44 (1) of the MPLR Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 06.01.2023, against which, the respondents No.1 to 4 preferred the second appeal which has been allowed vide order dated

29.08.2023.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the sole reason assigned by the second appeallate authority in passing the order dated 29.08.2023 is that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub-Division Jaura, District Morena, has not conducted an inquiry and examined the witnesses of the Will while allowing the first appeal preferred by the petitioner. He submits that the perusal of the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer would indicate that the due procedure as contemplated in law was followed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and therefore, the order passed by him could not have been set aside. He submits that as per the latest judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Tarachandra vs.

Bhawarlal and Another, reported in 2025 SCC Online 0108, there is no absolute bar in passing the order of mutation based upon a Will. He submits that unless there is serious dispute raised by the rival parties or the genuineness of the Will itself is disputed seriously, it is open for the Tahsildar to pass an order on the basis of Will. He submits that in the instatnt case, no serious dispute was raised by the respondents as regards