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

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 42699 of 2025 NAIM UR RAHIM KHAN AND OTHERS Versus AYESHA SULTAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ram Gulam Mahajan and Ms. Astha Goojar - Advocates for the petitioners.

Shri Vishal Daniel - Advocate for respondent No.1.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 28/03/2025 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Goharganj, District Raisen, as well as order passed by Commissioner, Bhopal Division Bhopal dated 13/10/2025, whereby an application for partition filed by the petitioners under Section 178(3) of MPLRC, 1959 was rejected because a Civil Suit No.35A/2024 is pending adjudication before the civil Court Goharganj.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that one W.P. No.15888/2023 in the name of Mohd. Faizan-Ur-Rahim Khan Vs. Smt. Ayesha Sultan & Others was filed for quashing the Additional Commissioner's order dated 26/06/2023 passed in case No.966/Appeal/2022-23. The issue was with respect to mutation dated 27/10/2004 in favour of Mohd. Faizan-Ur-Rahim Khan on the basis of Hiba dated 17/07/2001. The Appeal was preferred by Smt. Ayesha Sultan after 18 years along with an application for condonation of delay. The said application for condonation of delay was allowed by order dated 07/11/2022. Against which, a Revision was preferred by Mohd. Faizan-Ur-Rahim Khan being revision No.51/Division/AD-COM/2022-23. The Revision was dismissed vide order dated 18/01/2023. The Appeal preferred before Sub-Divisional Officer, Goharganj was allowed vide order dated 14/03/2023. The said order was put to challenge by filing an Appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The same was dismissed on 20/06/2023 and W.P. No.15888/2023 was disposed of holding that mutation is not a document of title. Therefore, the parties were granted liberty to approach the civil Court for declaration of their title. In compliance thereof, a civil Suit was preferred bearing RCSA No.35/2024 for declaration of title and permanent injunction on 11/05/2024, wherein defendants have marked their presence. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application for partition under Section 178(3) of MPLRC before Tehsildar in the month of July 2024, stating that she is the co-owner of Khasra No.284. Notice was issued and reply was submitted. The application was rejected by Tehsildar on 04/09/2024 on the ground that as the civil suit is pending adjudication with respect to the property in question, the application for partition cannot be entertained.

3. An Appeal was preferred against the same before the Sub Divisional Officer, Goharganj, District Raisen and the same was allowed on 28/03/2025 directing Tehsildar to proceed in accordance with provisions of Section

178(1-A) of MPLRC. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was assailed by filing an Appeal before the Commissioner, Bhopal Division Bhopal, which was rejected on 13/10/2025, which is the order impugned along with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that once the matter is pending adjudication before the civil Court in civil suit No.35A/2024, then the revenue Authorities are ceased to entertain any application for partition. The order passed by Tehsildar was just and proper and does not require any interference by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Commissioner. He has relied upon a judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Pratap Singh Vs. Prahalad Singh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine MP 6027, wherein the Court has considered the aspect of pendency of a Second Appeal before this Court and held that as the Second Appeal is pending before this Court for adjudication, the second application under Section 178 of MPLRC is not maintainable.

5. He has drawn attention of this Court to the provision of Section

178(1-A) of MPLRC. It is argued that whenever the question o