Daropti Sahu vs Jeevanlal Sahu (Dead ) Through Lars Buddhsen Sahu

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88003
1 WP-33817-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 33817 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010596592025
DROPTI SAHU
Versus
JEEVANLAL SAHU (DEAD ) THROUGH LRS BUDDHSEN SAHU AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saket Kumar Kori - Advocate for the petitioner through Video
Conferencing.
Shri Shakti Prakas Pandey - Advocate for respondents No.1(4)(1) and 1(4)
(2).
Shri Vineet Singh - Government Advocate for respondents No.2 and
3/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
by the petitioner assailing the order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer (SDO), Bandhavgarh, District Umaria, order dated 21.03.2023
passed by the Tahsildar, Tahsil Chandia, District Umaria and the appellate order
dated 27.01.2022 with a direction to the revenue Authorities to mutate her name
in the revenue records in respect of agricultural land bearing Khasra No.93/1/1
and 94/1/2/1, total area 0.467 hectare, situated at Village Koudia, District Umaria.
2 . The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the dispute are that the
petitioner purchased the land in question from the original owner, Jeevan S/o
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88003
2 WP-33817-2025
Sevak vide registered sale-deed dated 20.03.2020. On the basis of said sale-deed,

petitioner filed a mutation application before Tehsildar, Tehsil Chandia. Vide
order dated 08.03.2021, Tehsildar rejected the mutation application on the ground
that the petitioner had executed the sale deed by paying stamp duty applicable to
un-irrigated land, whereas the official revenue records classified the land as
irrigated thereby causing a loss of revenue to the State exchequer. Aggrieved by
the order dated 08.03.2021, petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Sub
Divisional Officer, Bandhavgarh, however, due to the non-appearance of the
petitioner or her counsel, the said Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution
on 27.01.2022 under Section 35(2) of MPLRC. Instead of filing an application for
restoration of the dismissed Appeal before the SDO, petitioner filed a fresh,
second application for mutation before the Tehsildar on the same cause of action.
Tehsildar vide order dated 21.03.2023, rejected the second mutation application
holding that since the primary order dated 08.03.2021 rejecting mutation was
never set aside by a competent higher authority, a second application on identical
facts was hit by the principle of res judicata and was therefore not maintainable.
Petitioner challenged the order before the SDO, which was subsequently
dismissed on 09.07.2025 confirming the Tehsildar’s findings. Therefore, this
petition has been filed.
3. The respondents/State have filed their return opposing the writ petition
on the ground of maintainability. It is argued that the petitioner has failed to
challenge the original order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Tehsildar.
Furthermore, it is contended that when the First Appeal was dismissed for want of
prosecution on 27.01.2022, the statutory remedy available to the petitioner was to
seek its restoration rather than filing subsequent repetitive applications. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88003
3 WP-33817-2025
hands. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the
perusal of record, it is clear that the earlier order passed by the Authorities dated
08/03/2021 is not put to challenge in the present petition nor the same has been
disclosed by the petitioner. Even the order passed in the Writ Petition is not
placed in the present Writ Petition. The Appeal preferred by the petitioner against
the order dated 08/03/2021 before the Sub Divisional Officer was dismissed for
want of prosecution. The petitioner should have filed an application for restoration
of the Appeal but he has chosen not to do so. The second application has been
filed by the petitioner without disclosing the aforesaid fact before Tehsildar. The
order impugned dated 21/03/2023 clearly shows that the earlier mutation
application was rejected on 08/03/2021 and even the Appeal against the same was
rejected. Therefore, the second application for mutation is clearly hit by the
principles of res judicata. The said aspect has not been disclosed by the petitioner
in the present Writ Petition. The petitioner has not approached the Court with
clean hands.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v.
Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531
has held as under :-
"44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for
adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the
obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and
leave the decision-making to the court. True, there is a
mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the order dated 24-7-
2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not enough disclosure.
The petitioners have not clearly disclosed the facts and
circumstances in which the order dated 2-5-2003 was passed
or that it has attained finality.
45. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In Hari
Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC 1558] stress was laid on
litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or misleading
statements, otherwise leave granted to an appellant may be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88003
4 WP-33817-2025
revoked. It was observed as follows:
“9. … It is of utmost importance that in making material
statements and setting forth grounds in applications for
special leave care must be taken not to make any statements
which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with
applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes
statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the
petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray
the confidence of the Court by making statements which are
untrue and misleading. That is why we have come to the
conclusion that in the present case, special leave granted to
the appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special
leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant
will pay the costs of the respondent.”
46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India
[(2010) 14 SCC 38 the case law on the subject was
discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not come to the
court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and
indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any
judicial forum. It was said-
“21. The principle that a person who does not come to the
court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the
merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not
entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions
filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but
also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial
forums. The object underlying the principle is that every
court is not only entitled but is duty-bound to protect itself
from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for
truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting
to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing
facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s)
arising in the case.”
47. A mere reference to the order dated 2-5-2003, en
passant, in the order dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the
requirement of disclosure. It is not for the court to look into
every word of the pleadings, documents and annexures to
fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to come upfront and clean
with all material facts and then, on the basis of the
submissions made by the learned counsel, leave it to the
court to determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant
for arriving at a decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have
not done this and must suffer the consequence thereof."
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Jayaram vs BDA, reported

in (2022) 12 SCC 815 has observed as follows :-
"14. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check
multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-
matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88003
5 WP-33817-2025
inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by
suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by
making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to
escape the liability of making a false statement, we are of the
view that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal
proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning
any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within
their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the
dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations were or are
pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings
in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in
accordance with law."

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah vs Union
of India reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120 has held that suppression must be of
'material' fact. It was observed as under :-
"10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature of the
Constitution, on the other, it provides for a discretionary
remedy. Access to justice is a human right. (See Dwarka
Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [(2003) 6 SCC 230] and
Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi v. State of Gujarat [(2007) 4
SCC 241 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 260 : (2007) 5 Scale 357].) A
person who has a grievance against a State, a forum must be
provided for redressal thereof. (See Hatton v. United
Kingdom [15 BHRC 259]. For reference see also Zee
Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649].)
11. The court's jurisdiction to determine the lis between the
parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights
concept of access to justice. The same, however, would not
mean that the court will have no jurisdiction to deny
equitable relief when the complainant does not approach the
court with a pair of clean hands; but to what extent such
relief should be denied is the question.
12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of
material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression
whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a
discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean
material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the
logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same
was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact
suppressed is not material for determination of the lis
between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person
invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be
allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88003
6 WP-33817-2025
the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean,
whether the relief would still be denied is the question."
8 . Under these circumstances, as the petitioner has not approached the

Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Court, this
Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
9 . Accordingly, the petition is dismissed imposing cost of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) on the petitioner for approaching the Court with
unclean hands, to be deposited in the Account of M.P. High Court Bar
Association (SB A/c No.519302010000549, IFSC CODE: UBIN0551937, Union
Bank of India, State Bar Council High Court Branch, Jabalpur), within a period of
10 working days from today.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 31-10-2026
17:20:24