Anita Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

1 WP-25508-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 25508 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC030205822024
ANITA UPADHYAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 11.07.2024 passed
by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Bhitarwar, District Gwalior, whereby the
mutation proceedings in respect of the agricultural land situated at Village
Sakhni, Tehsil Bhitarwar, District Gwalior, were decided in favour of
respondent No. 4, Vikas Sharma.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has
been passed without properly appreciating the earlier order dated 08.12.2023
passed by this Court in M.P. No. 5677 of 2023. It is contended that this
Court had clarified that the purchaser, on the basis of the sale deed, could not
claim any right over a specific portion of the land and the specific portion
could be determined only after partition between the parties. The Naib
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:48:38 PM

2 WP-25508-2024
Tehsildar was, accordingly, directed to mutate the names of the parties in the

revenue records as per their respective entitlements.
It is further submitted that the land in question was jointly held and had
not been partitioned in accordance with law. Respondent No. 4 had sought
mutation on the basis of a sale deed dated 10.12.2021 executed by
respondent No. 5. The earlier mutation order was challenged by the petitioner
before the revenue authorities, and the Additional Commissioner, by order
dated 24.08.2023, had set aside the mutation order after taking note of the
pending partition proceedings. Although the order of the Additional
Commissioner was subsequently set aside by this Court in M.P. No. 5677 of
2023, the direction issued by this Court was to record the names of the
parties according to their respective entitlements and not to recognise the
purchaser's exclusive right over specific survey numbers without
determination of the respective shares.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner
had specifically raised objections regarding the absence of determination of
the respective shares of the co-sharers and the recording of mutation in
respect of specific survey numbers. According to learned counsel, the
impugned order does not adequately address these objections and fails to
give effect to the directions issued by this Court. It is, therefore, contended
that the order dated 11.07.2024 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be
quashed, with a direction to the competent revenue authority to reconsider
the matter afresh in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:48:38 PM

3 WP-25508-2024
respondents/State opposes the petition and submits that the impugned order

has been passed by the Naib Tehsildar within the scope of the authority
conferred upon him under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It
is contended that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing and
her objections were taken into consideration before passing the impugned
order. Learned Government Advocate further submits that the order was
passed in the light of the earlier order of this Court, whereby the order of the
Tehsildar had been restored, and the present proceedings are merely an
implementation of the directions issued in the earlier round of litigation. On
these grounds, dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds that the
controversy requires reconsideration by the competent revenue authority in
the light of the directions contained in the earlier order dated 08.12.2023
passed by this Court in M.P. No. 5677 of 2023. The said order specifically
clarified that the purchaser, on the basis of the sale deed, could not claim a
right over any specific portion of the land and that the specific portion could
be determined only after partition between the parties. The authority was
directed to record the names of the parties in the revenue records in
accordance with their respective entitlements.
In view of the aforesaid clarification, the authority concerned was
required to consider the objections raised by the petitioner and examine the
respective entitlements of the parties while undertaking the mutation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:48:38 PM

4 WP-25508-2024
proceedings. The mere restoration of the earlier mutation order by this Court

cannot be construed as dispensing with the obligation of the revenue
authority to act in accordance with the directions contained in the order
dated 08.12.2023 and the applicable provisions of law. The question as to the
manner in which the mutation entries are to be recorded, keeping in view the
respective rights and shares of the parties and the status of the partition
proceedings, therefore, requires fresh consideration by the competent
authority.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be
served if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the
Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Bhitarwar, District Gwalior, for fresh consideration in
accordance with law, after taking into account the objections raised by the
petitioner, the material available on record and the directions issued by this
Court in the earlier round of litigation.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
11.07.2024 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Bhitarwar, District Gwalior,
is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil
Bhitarwar, District Gwalior, to decide it afresh in accordance with law, after
affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and by passing
a reasoned and speaking order. While undertaking such exercise, the
authority shall duly consider the respective entitlements of the parties and
scrupulously adhere to the directions contained in the order dated 08.12.2023
passed by this Court in M.P. No. 5677 of 2023.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:48:38 PM

5 WP-25508-2024
merits of the rival claims of the parties, and the competent authority shall

decide the matter independently, in accordance 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: 10/23/2026
1:48:38 PM