Kuldeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26777
1 WP-34287-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 7 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 34287 of 2026
KULDEEP AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Singh Rathore - Advocate for the petitioners.
Smt. Monika Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
by the petitioners assailing the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the
Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Case No.534/Appeal/2024-25,
whereby the appeal preferred by respondent Nos.5 to 7 was allowed and the order
dated 14.06.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lateri, as well
as the earlier order dated 15.12.2005 passed by the Tehsildar whereby mutation
entry was made in Namantaran Panji No.333, were set aside and the matter was
remanded to the Tehsildar for fresh consideration
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputed agricultural
land comprises Survey No.152, admeasuring 1.188 hectares, and Survey No.155,
admeasuring 1.189 hectares, total area 2.377 hectares, situated at Village
Anandpur, Tehsil Lateri, District Vidisha. It is submitted that the petitioners and
respondent Nos.8 to 12 are the legal representatives of Late Shri Kallu and Late
Shri Mangal Singh, both sons of Halkaiya, who was the original owner of the land
in question. On the basis of their succession, the Tehsildar had passed the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:07:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26777
2 WP-34287-2026
dated 15.12.2005 and made the requisite mutation entry in Namantaran Panji

No.333, pursuant to which the names of the petitioners and respondent Nos.8 to
12 came to be recorded in the revenue records as Bhumiswami.
It is further submitted that respondent Nos.5 to 7 challenged the said
mutation after a considerable lapse of time by filing an appeal before the Sub-
Divisional Officer (Revenue), which was dismissed on 14.06.2024. According to
learned counsel, the order passed by the SDO was well reasoned and based upon
the revenue record, but the Commissioner, without properly appreciating the
material available on record, has erroneously interfered with the same and
remanded the matter to the Tehsildar vide order dated 05.12.2025. Learned
counsel further submits that the Commissioner has also committed an error in
dealing with the documents produced under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of
Civil Procedure and has failed to consider the documents relied upon by the
petitioners. It is argued that the impugned order is arbitrary, contrary to the
provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and has resulted in serious
prejudice to the petitioners, who are in possession of the land and are cultivating
the same. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 05.12.2025
be quashed and the orders passed by the subordinate revenue authorities be
restored.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned
order passed by the Commissioner. It is submitted that the Commissioner has
considered the material available on record and, upon finding it necessary to
reconsider the matter, has rightly set aside the earlier orders and remanded the
proceedings to the Tehsildar for fresh adjudication. It is submitted that the order of
remand does not finally determine the rights of either party and the petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:07:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26777
3 WP-34287-2026
would have full opportunity to place their case and all relevant documents before

the competent revenue authority. Therefore, no interference with the impugned
order is warranted in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The undisputed position emerging from the pleadings is that the
controversy relates to the mutation of agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.152
and 155, total area 2.377 hectares, situated at Village Anandpur, Tehsil Lateri,
District Vidisha. The Tehsildar had made an entry in Namantaran Panji No.333 on
15.12.2005 in favour of Late Shri Kallu and Late Shri Mangal Singh, and
thereafter the names of their alleged legal representatives came to be reflected in
the revenue record. The challenge to the said mutation was thereafter considered
by the SDO, who dismissed the appeal on 14.06.2024. In the second appeal,
however, the Commissioner, by order dated 05.12.2025, interfered with the orders
passed by the subordinate authorities and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for
fresh consideration.
The principal grievance of the petitioners is against the remand of the
matter. However, from a perusal of the impugned order as challenged in the
present petition, it does not appear that the Commissioner has finally adjudicated
the title or possession of the parties in favour of one party and against the other.
Rather, the effect of the impugned order is to restore the matter before the
competent revenue authority for fresh consideration. Thus, the petitioners would
have an adequate opportunity to place all their documents and objections before
the Tehsildar and to establish their claim in accordance with law.
In the present case, the Commissioner has not foreclosed the claim of the
petitioners. On the contrary, the matter has been remanded for fresh consideration.
Merely because the petitioners had succeeded before the SDO, that by itself would
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:07:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26777
4 WP-34287-2026
not confer upon them an indefeasible right to continuation of the mutation entry

when the appellate authority has found it appropriate to reconsider the matter.
This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, ordinarily does not interfere
with an interlocutory or remand order unless the same suffers from patent
jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of principles of natural justice. No such
exceptional circumstance is made out in the present case. The impugned order
dated 05.12.2025 does not finally determine the rights of the parties and the
petitioners can effectively raise all their contentions before the Tehsildar in the
proceedings pursuant to the remand.
Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned
order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in
Case No.534/Appeal/2024-25.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 9/8/2026
5:07:26 PM