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. 39801 of 2024 RAM PRAKASH Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 08-11-2024 passed in case 0985/appeal/2023-24 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure P-6)

(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to confirmed the order dated 9-2-2022 and 26-7-2020 i.e.

Annexure P-3 & P-4.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit and proper may also be passed together cost of petition.

2 . It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application for mutation before respondent No.3/ Tehsildar pleading that one Biliya Bai has executed a Will in favour of the petitioner with respect to property bearing Khasra Nos.229, 322, 458, 459 total area 4.12 hectare. Out of total area, land admeasuring 0.15, 0.31, 0.10, 0.47 Hectare total area 1.03 hectare was in the share of Biliya Bai and she has executed Will in favour of the petitioner because he is her nephew and living with her since last 25 years. The Will was executed in favour of the petitioner in presence of two witnesses namely Vishnu Prasad Lon and Gunnuram before the Notary. Thereafter, Tehsildar adopted all the legal procedure and published public information and recorded evidence of the petitioner and other witnesses who were present at the time of execution of Will and they accepted that the said Will was executed by Biliya Bai in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, Tehsildar, Dheemarkheda, District Katni passed a mutation order dated 09/02/2022 in Revenue case No.527/A-6/2021-2022. Being aggrieved by the said order, private respondents filed an Appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, which was dismissed by the order dated 26/07/2022. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Petition No.5421/2022 was filed before this Court by respondent No.4 which was withdrawn with liberty to file Second Appeal before the Commissioner, Jabalpur. Respondents No.4 to 6 filed Second Appeal against the order dated 26/07/2022 before respondent No.1, wherein respondent No.1 has set aside the order dated 26/07/2022 passed by Sub Divisional Officer as well as mutation order dated 09/02/2022 passed by Tehsildar on the ground that as the Will dated 22/12/2020 is a disputed Will, therefore revenue Authorities cannot pass mutation order on the basis of Will. Therefore, being aggrieved by the order dated 08/11/2024 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division Jabalpur, this petition has been filed.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division Jabalpur has erred while passing the order impugned. The Sub Divisional Officer has rightly affirmed the order passed by Tehsildar. The Will in question is not disputed and the petitioner has proved the Will prior to passing of the mutation order by Tehsildar. Therefore, he has prayed for quashment of the order impugned passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division Jabalpur.

4 . Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions and supported the impugned order. He has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Anand Choudhary vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online MP 977 and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

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

6. From the perusal of record, it is clear that on an application filed by the petitioner, mutation proceedings have been carried out by the Authorities on the basis of the Wi