Shri Mandir Murti Ramjanki Mandir Situated At Vill. Ratanbarri Teh Sironj Distt. Vidisha Thr. Kalayn vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32879
1 WP-10248-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10248 of 2021
CNR No.: MPHC030137432021
SHRI MANDIR MURTI RAMJANKI MANDIR SITUATED AT VILL.
RATANBARRI TEH SIRONJ DISTT. VIDISHA THR. KALAYN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M P S Raghuwanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Ashwini Johri -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvansh - Advocate for the respondents No.5, 6
and 7.
Shri Sharaz Qureshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to
4/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by
the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, whereby the orders
dated 31.03.2017 passed by the Tehsildar, Sironj, and 30.01.2018 passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sironj, have been set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question,
comprising Survey Nos. 176, 305 and 306, admeasuring a total area of 2.402
hectares and situated at Village Ratanbarri, Tehsil Sironj, District Vidisha,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:11:03 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32879
2 WP-10248-2021
was purchased in the name of Mandir by the forefathers of the petitioner, by

a registered sale deed dated 06.06.1998. It is contended that the land has
since been in the possession of the Mandir and the income derived therefrom
is utilized for its maintenance and management. The mutation proceedings
were initiated under Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1959, and the Tehsildar, by order dated 31.03.2017, directed
mutation in favour of the petitioner. The appeal preferred by private
respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on
30.01.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Additional
Commissioner has committed an error in setting aside the aforesaid orders,
particularly by questioning the validity of the transaction executed in the year
1998 and the authority of the mother of the private respondents to execute
the sale deed on behalf of her minor children. According to the petitioner, the
revenue authorities are not competent to adjudicate upon the validity of the
sale deed or any decree underlying the transaction, as such questions fall
within the domain of the competent civil court. It is also submitted that the
petitioner's claim regarding the management of the Mandir is supported by a
certificate issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat, which has been placed
on record as Annexure P/6. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the
impugned order be quashed and the orders passed by the Tehsildar and the
Sub-Divisional Officer be restored.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 5,
6 and 7, while opposing the petition, submits that the impugned order passed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:11:03 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32879
3 WP-10248-2021
by the learned Additional Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality,

infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court. It is contended
that, while setting aside the mutation order dated 31.03.2017, the learned
Additional Commissioner also recorded a finding that the mutation had been
sanctioned in favour of a deceased person, namely, Munshilal. However,
learned counsel submits that the aforesaid finding is factually incorrect, as
the application for mutation under Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was filed in the name of Kalyan Singh,
son of Late Shri Munshilal, and not in the name of Munshilal himself. On
this basis, it is contended that the mutation order was not passed in favour of
a deceased person and, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned
Additional Commissioner in this regard is unsustainable.
It is further contended on behalf of the private respondents that the sale
deed dated 06.06.1998 was executed in favour of the Mandir through its then
manager, late Shri Munshilal Dangi, by their mother acting as guardian of
the minor children, and the legality of such transaction requires examination
in the light of the applicable provisions of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956. Learned counsel also relies upon the statement
made by the petitioner before the revenue authorities on 06.02.2017,
wherein, according to the private respondents, the petitioner acknowledged
that he did not possess any order or certificate establishing his father's
appointment as manager of the Mandir, apart from a certificate issued by the
Gram Panchayat. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the
petitioner has failed to establish a case for interference and prays for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:11:03 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32879
4 WP-10248-2021
dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner
raises issues concerning the nature and status of the land, the circumstances
in which the mutation was sanctioned and the authority under which the land
is being managed. These aspects require proper consideration on the basis of
the relevant documents and the rival contentions of the parties.
It is also evident from the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties that certain factual aspects, including the identity of the person in
whose favour the mutation was sought and sanctioned, as well as the nature
of the rights claimed in respect of the land, require due examination. The
contention that the mutation was sanctioned in favour of a deceased person,
despite the assertion that the application was filed in the name of Kalyan
Singh, son of Late Shri Munshilal, is an aspect that ought to be examined
with reference to the original mutation proceedings and the relevant revenue
records. Similarly, the claim concerning the management of the Mandir and
the nature of the land cannot be conclusively determined without examining
the relevant documents and affording the parties an effective opportunity to
put forth their respective cases.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, cannot be sustained in its present
form. The ends of justice would be served by setting aside the impugned
order and remitting the matter to the Tehsildar, Sironj, for fresh consideration
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:11:03 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32879
5 WP-10248-2021
and decision in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
07.01.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division,
Bhopal, is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Tehsildar, Sironj,
for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law. The Tehsildar
shall determine the nature and status of the land in question after examining
the relevant revenue records, registered documents and other material placed
on record by the parties. The Tehsildar shall also examine the original
mutation proceedings and ascertain the person in whose favour mutation was
sought and sanctioned, in the light of the relevant records. After affording
the parties an effective opportunity of hearing and considering their rival
submissions, the Tehsildar shall examine the question of lawful management
of the land. In particular, if the land is found to be private land, the claim,
role and authority of the Trust as manager shall be examined in accordance
with law. Conversely, if the land is found to be Government land, the
question of its management shall be considered in accordance with the
applicable legal provisions governing the authority of the Collector.
The Tehsildar shall consider all relevant documents and material
contentions raised by the parties and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order
dealing with the issues arising for consideration. It is made clear that the
observations made herein are confined to the disposal of the present writ
petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits
of the rival claims concerning title or the validity of the transaction. The
competent authority shall decide the matter independently, in accordance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:11:03 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32879
6 WP-10248-2021
with law and on the basis of the material available on record.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:11:03 PM