IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 423 of 2012 SAPNA ALIAS SAMEEM Versus STATE OF M.P AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Udit Saxena - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Vijay Sundaram - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.

Reserved on : 15/12/2025 Delivered on : 17/12/2025 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 challenges the order dated 15.04.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed by the SDO, Sheopur, District Sheopur in Case No.76/10-11/170(B) whereby, the name of the petitioner has been directed to be deleted from the record of land bearing Khasra No.173, 177/2, 179/1 and 189/2 situated at Village Mayapur, District Sheopur and the directions have also been issued for correcting the revenue records.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the SDO proceeded to decide the matter by exercising powers under Section 170 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPLR Code, 1959') which deals with avoidance of transfer of land in contravention of Section 165 of MPLR Code, 1959. It is contended that such powers can be exercised only where possession of land is transferred by a Bhumiswami in violation of sub-section (6) of Section 165. However, in the instant case, the land in question is stated to have been transferred in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by Nainga, an Adiwasi. The said Will was produced before the Gram Panchayat and by virtue of a resolution (Annexure P/3), mutation of the land in question was made in favour of the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner served the deceased Nainga during his last days and, out of love and affection, the deceased treated the petitioner as a member of his family and executed a Will in her favour. The learned counsel thus submits that in such circumstances, the powers under Section 170 of the MPLR Code, 1959 could not have been exercised by the SDO. He further submits that in respect of other land situated in an adjoining village, involving a similar transaction, the SDO had earlier held that once the Patta is granted in favour of a subsequent transferee then, the provisions of Section 170 of MPLR, Code 1959 are not applicable. He submits that the instant writ petition was entertained by placing reliance on interim orders passed in identical writ petitions bearing W.P. No.4237/2011, W.P.No.2808/2011 and W.P.

No.5092/2011 which have been allowed by this Court by a common order dated 09.05.2012. Accordingly, he submits that the instant writ petition also deserves to be allowed on similar terms.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State while opposing the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners submits that the reliance placed upon by the petitioner on the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.8055/2011 and other connected Bunch of writ petitions is wholly misconceived, as the facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable from the said bunch of cases. He submits that in the aforesaid bunch of cases, the land was initially granted on government lease to an Adiwasi and thereafter the Patta granted in favour of the Adiwasi was cancelled and a fresh patta was issued in favour of the petitioner therein, which action was sought to be interfered with by the SDO and in those facts and circumstances, this Court vide order dated 09.05.2012, held that the provisions of Section 170 of MPLR Code, 1959 were not applicable.

6. However, he submits that in the instant case, admittedly the land was given on government lease to Nainga, an Adiwasi, and the patta in his favour continued to subsist. After his death, the petitioner, on the strength of an alleged Will said to have been executed by Nainga, got her name mutated on the