Ramesh Chandra vs The State Of M.P.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
1 WP-977-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 977 of 2009
CNR No.: MPHC030037612009
RAMESH CHANDRA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri MPS Raghuwanshi - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Ashwini
Johri - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - Govt. Advocate for the State.
RESERVED ON :- 14/10/2026
DELIVERED ON :- 27/10/2026
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the order Annexure P/1 & P/2 passed by the
Board of Revenue & Additional Commissioner, Gwalior
Division Gwalior respectively may kindly be set aside.
(ii) That, it may be held that the order passed by the
Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner,
Gwalior Division Gwalior Annexure P/1 & Annexure P/2
respectively are contrary to law and they have exceeded their
jurisdiction in disturbing the order dt. 28-02-1989 passed by

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
2 WP-977-2009
the Sub Divisional Officer and competent authority Datia

which was not under challenge before them.
(iii) That, the other relief doing justice including cost
be awarded."
The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 29.11.2006
passed by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior (Annexure P/1),
and the order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Gwalior Division, Gwalior (Annexure P/2), in proceedings arising out of the
Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960.
The facts, as pleaded by the petitioners, are that ceiling proceedings
were initiated against late Panna Lal, who was the holder of the agricultural
land as the Karta of a joint Hindu family. By order dated 27.01.1976
(Annexure P/3), the Sub-Divisional Officer and competent authority, Datia,
provisionally treated 119 acres of land as surplus and directed issuance of a
draft statement under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. Aggrieved by
the said order, late Panna Lal preferred an appeal before the Collector, Datia,
which was dismissed vide order dated 29.09.1976 (Annexure P/4).
Thereafter, a further challenge was made before the Commissioner,
Gwalior Division, Gwalior, who, by order dated 24.03.1977 (Annexure P/5),
set aside the Collector's order and remanded the matter for fresh
consideration, with a direction to record a specific finding on the question
whether the land in question was held by a joint Hindu family.
Upon remand, the Collector, Datia, reconsidered the matter and, by

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
3 WP-977-2009
order dated 25.07.1978 (Annexure P/6), again dismissed the appeal. The

subsequent revision preferred before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division,
Gwalior, was rejected on 29.08.1979 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, the matter
was carried before the Board of Revenue, which, by order dated 03.02.1982
(Annexure P/8), held the proceedings to be premature and directed the
competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Consequently,
the matter again came before the Sub-Divisional Officer and competent
authority, Datia, for further proceedings under the Act.
During the pendency of the proceedings, late Panna Lal died in the
year 1986. An application was thereafter moved on behalf of the concerned
persons seeking termination of the ceiling proceedings on the ground that the
proceedings had been initiated against the original landholder and his death
necessitated consideration of the legal consequences under the Act. The
application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer and competent
authority, Datia, by order dated 16.12.1986. Against the said order, a
revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior
Division, Gwalior.
It is the case of the petitioners that, while the aforesaid revision was
pending, the Sub-Divisional Officer and competent authority, Datia,
proceeded with the ceiling proceedings and passed an order dated
28.02.1989. By the said order, out of the land initially proposed to be
declared surplus, only 31.7 acres of land was declared surplus. The said order
was passed after the earlier proceedings had been remanded by the Board of
Revenue and constituted the final determination made by the competent

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
4 WP-977-2009
authority in the ceiling proceedings. Neither the State Government nor any

other concerned party challenged the said order in appeal or revision. Thus,
the order dated 28.02.1989 attained finality and could not subsequently be
disturbed in proceedings arising out of the earlier order dated 16.12.1986.
The petitioners further stated that the Additional Commissioner,
Gwalior Division, Gwalior, subsequently passed the order dated 12.12.2005
in the revision arising from the order dated 16.12.1986. Thereafter, the Board
of Revenue, by order dated 29.11.2006 (Annexure P/1), passed the order
impugned in the present petition. According to the petitioners, while passing
the aforesaid orders, the authorities failed to appreciate that the competent
authority had already passed the order dated 28.02.1989 after reconsideration
of the matter pursuant to the directions of the Board of Revenue and the said
order had not been challenged by any party.
Aggrieved by the orders dated 12.12.2005 and 29.11.2006, the
petitioners have approached this Court, contending that the authorities below
have unlawfully interfered with an order which had attained finality, without
affording them an opportunity of hearing and without properly appreciating
the scope of their revisional jurisdiction. They accordingly seek quashment
of the impugned orders and protection of the order dated 28.02.1989 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer and competent authority, Datia.
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri
Ashwini Johri, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the
impugned orders dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Gwalior Division, Gwalior, and 29.11.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
5 WP-977-2009
Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, are contrary to law and are liable to be set aside,

as the authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction by disturbing the order
dated 28.02.1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and competent
authority, Datia, which was never challenged by any aggrieved party and had
attained finality.
It was further contended that the order dated 28.02.1989 was passed by
the competent authority after the matter had undergone several rounds of
appellate and revisional proceedings and after the Board of Revenue, by
order dated 03.02.1982, had remanded the matter for consideration afresh in
accordance with law. Once the competent authority had reconsidered the
matter and passed the order dated 28.02.1989, the earlier proceedings arising
out of the order dated 16.12.1986 could not have been continued in a manner
that resulted in reopening or disturbing the subsequent final order.
It was next submitted that the order dated 28.02.1989 was passed by
the competent authority while the revision against the earlier order dated
16.12.1986 was pending before the Additional Commissioner. By passing
the order dated 28.02.1989, the competent authority had finally dealt with the
ceiling proceedings pursuant to the remand made by the Board of Revenue.
In these circumstances, the revision arising out of the earlier order had
become infructuous, as the subsequent order had superseded the earlier stage
of the proceedings and finally determined the extent of land liable to be
declared surplus. Thus, the appropriate remedy, if any, against the order
dated 28.02.1989 was to challenge that order in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under the Act. In the absence of any such challenge,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
6 WP-977-2009
the authorities could not have indirectly reopened the issues determined by

the said order in proceedings arising from an earlier order.
It was also contended that the impugned orders suffer from a
jurisdictional error insofar as they disturb the order dated 28.02.1989 without
that order itself being the subject matter of a proper challenge and the
revisional jurisdiction of a revenue authority must be exercised within the
limits prescribed by law and cannot be employed to unsettle a final order,
which had attained finality, particularly when no appeal or revision against
such order was preferred by the State Government or any other person
aggrieved by it. The authorities below failed to appreciate the distinction
between examining the legality of the earlier order dated 16.12.1986 and
interfering with the subsequent final order dated 28.02.1989, which was
passed after further proceedings before the competent authority.
It was next submitted that the original ceiling proceedings were
initiated against late Panna Lal, who was the holder of the agricultural land
and was stated to be holding the same as the Karta of a joint Hindu family.
Panna Lal died in the year 1986 while the proceedings were pending. An
application was thereafter submitted seeking termination of the proceedings
in view of his death. The legal consequences of the death of the original
landholder required due consideration under the provisions of the Madhya
Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, and the authorities
could not proceed mechanically without examining the status of the
surviving family members and the nature of their respective holdings. Thus,
the proceedings ought to have been considered in the context of the statutory

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
7 WP-977-2009
definition of “family”, the provisions governing the determination of ceiling

limits, and the relevant circumstances concerning the ownership and holding
of the land.
It was further argued that the competent authority, after the matter was
remanded by the Board of Revenue, passed the order dated 28.02.1989
declaring only 31.7 acres of land as surplus, instead of the 119 acres initially
proposed to be declared surplus by the order dated 27.01.1976. This
determination was made by the competent authority after considering the
matter in the light of the earlier directions and the applicable provisions of
the Act. The said order was neither challenged by the State Government nor
set aside in any independent appellate or revisional proceeding initiated
against it. Consequently, the determination made therein could not
subsequently be disturbed merely because a revision arising out of an earlier
interlocutory or intermediate order had remained pending before another
revenue authority.
It was also argued that the impugned orders have been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were not
afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before the order dated
28.02.1989, which had attained finality, was disturbed. Whenever an
authority proposes to pass an order adversely affecting rights flowing from
an earlier final order, the persons likely to be affected must be afforded an
opportunity of hearing, particularly when they were not parties to the
proceedings in which the subsequent adverse order was passed. The failure
to issue notice to the petitioners and hear them before interfering with the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
8 WP-977-2009
order dated 28.02.1989 vitiates the impugned action.

It was further submitted that the order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the
Additional Commissioner and the consequential order dated 29.11.2006
passed by the Board of Revenue failed to properly appreciate the legal effect
of the proceedings undertaken after the remand order dated 03.02.1982. The
competent authority was required to proceed in accordance with the statutory
procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act, including the preparation
and publication of the draft statement, consideration of objections and
determination of the land to be retained by the landholder and the land liable
to be declared surplus. The authorities below ought to have considered
whether the order dated 28.02.1989 represented the final determination made
in those proceedings and whether any legally permissible ground existed for
reopening the matter after the said order had attained finality.
It was further argued that the impugned orders cannot be sustained
merely on the ground that an earlier revision was pending when the order
dated 28.02.1989 was passed and the pendency of a revision against an
earlier order did not, by itself, authorise the revisional authority to disregard
the subsequent order passed by the competent authority pursuant to the
directions issued by the Board of Revenue. In the absence of an order
staying the subsequent proceedings or a competent challenge to the order
dated 28.02.1989, the competent authority was entitled to proceed in
accordance with law. Thus, the authorities below have failed to appreciate
the effect of the subsequent proceedings and have exceeded the limits of
their jurisdiction.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
9 WP-977-2009
It was lastly contended that the impugned orders have caused serious

prejudice to the petitioners by unsettling a determination which had attained
finality and by exposing the landholding to further proceedings without due
regard to the statutory procedure and the principles of natural justice. Thus,
the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue
are legally unsustainable and warrant interference by this Court in exercise of
its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
On the aforesaid grounds, it was prayed that the writ petition be
allowed, the impugned orders dated 12.12.2005 and 29.11.2006 (Annexures
P/2 and P/1, respectively) be set aside, and the order dated 28.02.1989 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer and competent authority, Datia, be permitted
to stand undisturbed.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State
opposed the petition and submitted that the proceedings under the M.P.
Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, were initiated and continued in
accordance with law. It was further contended that the death of Panna Lal
during the pendency of the proceedings did not automatically terminate the
ceiling proceedings, and the petitioners had failed to establish any illegality
or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, dismissal of the
petition was prayed for.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The controversy involved in the present petition primarily concerns the
effect of the order dated 28.02.1989 passed by the competent authority in the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
10 WP-977-2009
ceiling proceedings initiated against late Panna Lal and the legality of the

subsequent revisional orders passed in proceedings arising out of an
interlocutory order dated 16.12.1986. The petitioners contended that, upon
passing of the order dated 28.02.1989, the ceiling proceedings stood finally
adjudicated and the said order, having not been challenged in accordance
with law, could not have been disturbed in subsequent proceedings arising
from an earlier interlocutory order.
The ceiling proceedings were initiated in the year 1976, wherein an
area of approximately 119 bighas was initially proposed to be treated as
surplus. The matter travelled through the revenue hierarchy, and the
Commissioner, Gwalior Division, by order dated 24.03.1977, remanded the
matter for determination of whether the land in question belonged to a joint
Hindu family. Subsequently, the Board of Revenue, by order dated
03.02.1982, held the proceedings to be premature and directed the competent
authority to proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Section 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act,
1960.
During the pendency of the proceedings, Panna Lal died in the year
1986. The Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 16.12.1986, rejected the
application seeking consideration of the legal consequences of his death. The
said order gave rise to further revisional proceedings before the
Commissioner and, subsequently, the Board of Revenue. In the meantime,
however, the competent authority, pursuant to the directions issued by the
Board of Revenue, passed the order dated 28.02.1989, finally determining

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
11 WP-977-2009
the ceiling proceedings and holding 31.7 bighas of land to be surplus, as

against the approximately 119 bighas initially proposed.
The order dated 28.02.1989, therefore, assumes decisive significance.
It was passed in the original ceiling proceedings after the matter had been
remitted by the Board of Revenue for further action in accordance with the
statutory procedure. By the said order, the competent authority proceeded to
determine the surplus land under the Act. The petitioners asserted that this
order was never challenged in any independent proceeding and attained
finality. Consequently, the legality of the subsequent revisional proceedings
arising from the order dated 16.12.1986 has to be examined in the context of
the subsequent final adjudication of the original ceiling proceedings.
It is a settled principle that an authority exercising revisional
jurisdiction must act within the scope of its statutory powers and take into
account subsequent developments materially affecting the subject matter of
the proceedings before it. The revisional authority cannot disregard a
subsequent final order passed by the competent authority in the original
proceedings, particularly when the proceedings before it arise from an earlier
interlocutory order and the subsequent final order has not itself been
challenged or stayed in accordance with law.
In the present case, the revisional proceedings before the
Commissioner and thereafter the Board of Revenue originated from the order
dated 16.12.1986, whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer had rejected the
application concerning the effect of Panna Lal’s death on the ceiling
proceedings. However, before those revisional proceedings culminated in the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
12 WP-977-2009
impugned orders, the competent authority had passed the order dated

28.02.1989, finally adjudicating the original ceiling proceedings and
determining the extent of surplus land. In these circumstances, the issue
arising from the earlier order dated 16.12.1986 could not be considered in
isolation from the subsequent final determination of the ceiling proceedings.
The subsequent final order had materially altered the procedural position,
and the revisional proceedings arising from the earlier interlocutory order
could not be permitted to operate so as to unsettle the concluded
determination in the original proceedings, particularly when the order dated
28.02.1989 had neither been challenged nor stayed.
The respondents have contended that the death of Panna Lal did not
automatically terminate the ceiling proceedings under the Act. However, that
contention does not address the material circumstance that the competent
authority subsequently proceeded with the ceiling case and passed the order
dated 28.02.1989. The issue before this Court is not merely whether the
proceedings could continue after the death of the original landholder, but
whether the revisional proceedings arising from the earlier order dated
16.12.1986 could validly culminate in the impugned orders despite the
subsequent final adjudication of the original ceiling proceedings.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the revisional proceedings
arising from the order dated 16.12.1986 had lost their efficacy upon the
subsequent final adjudication of the original ceiling proceedings by order
dated 28.02.1989. The impugned orders passed in those proceedings could
not lawfully be employed to disturb the position arising from the final order

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:31975
13 WP-977-2009
dated 28.02.1989, which had remained unchallenged. The impugned orders,

therefore, cannot be sustained in law and warrant interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
12.12.2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, and
the consequential order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the Board of Revenue,
Madhya Pradesh, are hereby quashed.
Consequently, the order dated 28.02.1989 passed by the competent
authority in the original ceiling proceedings shall remain undisturbed, and
the impugned revisional orders shall have no effect upon the determination
made therein.
The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab
301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265
f02d9d593f, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7064434,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
serialNumber=61b9d129971d2ea4fd 4455ed49ea436ea65e26164beeed89
153191c56e98ce21, cn=PAWAN
KUMAR
Date: 2026.10.27 18:05:30 +05'30'
PAWA
N
KUMAR
pwn*