IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 25503 of 2025 SHARIF KHAN Versus SABRA BI D/O ABDUL SALAM AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Dudawat - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Harish Kumar Dixit - Senior Advocate with Ms. Ritika Chaubey -

Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.

Shri G.K. Agarwal - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

Reserved on : 23.02.2026 Delivered on : 26.02.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

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

2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal whereby, the second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the SDO (Revenue) has been rejected.

3. The petition also challenges the order dated 14.10.2016 (Annexure P/2) passed by the SDO (Revenue) rejecting the first appeal preferred by the petitioner and also the order dated 31.08.2004 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sironj, District Vidisha whereby, the land in question has been mutated in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2 on the strength of an alleged oral Hiba said to have been executed by the petitioner in their favour.

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

4.1 The respondents No. 1 and 2 moved an application under Sections 109, 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 seeking mutation of land bearing Survey No.38/8 admeasuring 0.514 hectares situated at village Barkhedi, Tehsil Sironj in their names on the basis of an oral Hiba said to be executed in their favour by the petitioner. The said application came to be allowed by the Tehsildar, Sironj vide order dated 31.08.2004. The petitioner herein assailed the said order in a first appeal before the SDO, which was rejected vide order dated 14.10.2016. The petitioner thereafter filed a second appeal against the said order before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal, Division Bhopal which was allowed vide order dated 30.06.2021. The respondents herein assailed the aforesaid order initially by filing a review before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, which was allowed vide order dated 16.11.2022 and the matter was remitted to the Tehsildar for passing an order afresh. The petitioner herein assailed the aforesaid order dated 16.11.2022 before this Court in M.P. No.116/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.04.2024 by setting aside the order dated 16.11.2022 and remanding the matter back to the Additional Commissioner for passing an order on the second appeal afresh. Thereafter, the second appellate authority has passed the order dated 20.05.2025. These orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the so called oral Hiba said to have been executed by him in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 is fraudulent. He submits that he never intended to gift any of his land to the respondents No. 1 and 2 as, the petitioner himself is the father of ten children and therefore, he has no occasion to transfer the land to the respondents No.1 and 2. He submits that the alleged Hiba is a forged transaction and therefore, no right accrued in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2. The first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority have erred in dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide the orders impugned.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 by referring to the return filed submits that before the Tehsildar, the petitioner was called upon and he submitted his affidavit in support of the oral Hiba executed in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2. Once, the petitioner consented before the original authority, it is no longer open for