IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH ON THE 24^th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 595 of 2013 SHRIRAM GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT Versus STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kunal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri G.K. Agarwal - Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and

2/State.

Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil - Advocate for the respondents No.

3 to 9.

ORDER

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

2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 21.07.1992 (Annexure P/2) passed by the SDO, Gwalior in Case No.19/81- 82/Appeal whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 & 2 namely Mangal Singh and Rajveer Singh challenging the order dated 18.02.82 passed by the Tehsildar was partly allowed and the matter was remitted to the Tehsildar for further consideration in terms of the directions contained therein.

3. The petition also challenges the order dated 27.07.2010 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.07.1992 passed by the SDO was rejected on the ground of delay.

4. The petition also challenges the order dated 8.2.2012 (Annexure P/4) whereby, the second revision preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid two orders was rejected by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior.

5. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition as pleaded in the petition are as under:-

5.1 Vide order dated 18.02.1982, the Tehsildar settled 10.04 hectares of land situated at village Bahodapur, Gwalior in favour of one Dhanto widow of Munna and Matre son of Godha. The petitioner herein claims to have purchased the aforesaid land from the said persons vide registered sale deed dated 30.3.1982 and thereafter divided the land into plots and sold the same to its members, over which construction is also said to be raised by the members of the petitioner/society.

5.2 It appears that the order dated 18.02.1982 passed by the Tehsildar was challenged by the respondents No. 1 and 2 in an appeal before the SDO, which was partly allowed vide order dated 21.07.1992 and the matter was remitted to the Tehsildar for reconsideration in terms of the directions contained therein.

5.3 Being aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the said order before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior by filing a revision, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2010 and thereafter the second revision preferred before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2012. These are the orders under challenge in the present writ petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner had purchased the land from the erstwhile Bhumiswami, the appeal preferred by the respondents No.1 and 2 could not have been decided by the SDO without impleading the petitioner as a party respondent. He submits that the bare perusal of the order (Annexure P/2) indicates that the petitioner was not impleaded as party respondent in the said proceedings and the order dated 21.07.1992 was passed behind his back.

7. He further submits that though there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the said order in a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior therefore, a request was made by the petitioner to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction against the order dated 21.07.1992 passed by the SDO but, the Additional Commissioner declined to exercise such powers of suo motu revision and dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground of delay. He submits that the Board of Revenue has also erred in not interfering with the orders passed by the subordinate authorities.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 to 9 submits that the perusal of the order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the Additional