Smt Ambika Shukla vs V M Singh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:57781
1 WA-3197-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 29 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3197 of 2024
SMT AMBIKA SHUKLA AND OTHERS
Versus
V M SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate with Shri Anuj Shrivastava -
Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kumkum Dhurve
- Advocate for respondent.
Shri Siddharth Sharma & Shri Umesh Tripathi & Advocate for
respondent No1.
Ms. Awantika Manohar - Advocate for respondent/Intervenor through
VC.
Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal J.
This writ appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya
Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,
2005, by the appellants Smt. Ambika Shukla and Smt. Menka Gandhi,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/30/2026 5:45:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:57781
2 WA-3197-2024
acting through their power of attorney holder assailing the order dated

03.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5227/2020, and
the consequential order dated 23.04.2024 passed in R.P. No. 242/2024,
whereby the review petition filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed and the
earlier order was modified.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that Shri Datar Singh died on
07.05.1973, leaving behind his wife, two sons Kunwar Mahendra Pal Singh
and S. Maninder Singh and two daughters Smt. Amteshwar Anand and Smt.
Kirpal Kaur. S. Maninder Singh, son of Shri Datar Singh and father of
respondent No. 1/V.M. Singh, instituted a suit for partition, being Suit No.
63/1975, before the High Court of Delhi in the year 1975. After the death of
S. Maninder Singh, his younger son, Shri Anand Deep Singh, instituted
another suit for partition, being Suit No. 1495/1989, before the High Court of
Delhi in the year 1989, which suit was clubbed with the earlier suit of 1975.
3. During the pendency of the clubbed suits, three separate
applications under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
were filed for recording a compromise arrived at amongst the heirs, and a
compromise deed was accordingly executed amongst them. On 25.08.1993,
the High Court of Delhi passed a compromise decree recording the said
settlement. An application filed for setting aside the decree was dismissed on
19.05.2000. The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 6326/2005, upheld the
decree by order dated 07.10.2005, and while doing so, modified the decree
and directed conditional payment to be made. Review Petition No.
1801/2005 filed thereafter was also dismissed. By order dated 29.07.2006,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/30/2026 5:45:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:57781
3 WA-3197-2024
the Supreme Court directed the amount to be deposited before its Registry,

and by order dated 30.08.2007, permitted withdrawal thereof, directing that
execution proceedings before the competent court be expedited. The
Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court, by order dated 30.10.2007, directed
return of the deposit. On 15.12.2014, the High Court of Delhi allowed
withdrawal of Execution No. 125/2007, with liberty to file afresh.
4. It is against this backdrop that respondent No. 1/V.M. Singh filed
W.P. No. 5227/2020 before this Court, against the State Government,
seeking implementation of the compromise decree passed by the High Court
of Delhi and a direction to the Tehsildar, Bhopal, to mutate the disputed
property, situated at Bhopal, in his name under Sections 109/110 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, without impleading the present
appellants as parties thereto.
5. By order dated 03.03.2020, the learned Single Judge disposed of
the writ petition by directing the Tehsildar, Bhopal, to decide the application
dated 14.10.2019 (Annexure P/19) in accordance with law, by passing a
reasoned and speaking order, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of the order. Pursuant thereto, the Tehsildar, Najul,
Bhopal, by order dated 13.07.2020, rejected the mutation application.
Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed Contempt Petition No. 428/2021, in which
a show cause notice was issued to the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar thereupon
filed Writ Appeal No. 664/2022, whereby the order passed in the contempt
petition was set aside.
6. Thereafter, respondent No. 1/V.M. Singh filed Review Petition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/30/2026 5:45:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:57781
4 WA-3197-2024
No. 242/2024 against the order dated 03.03.2020 passed in W.P. No.

5227/2020, which came to be allowed by order dated 23.04.2024, whereby
the earlier order was modified to the extent that, in place of the words “in
accordance with law” occurring in the last paragraph of the said order, the
same be read as “in accordance with the decree”. Consequent thereupon,
respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 32 of the M.P. Land
Revenue Code before the Tehsildar, which came to be allowed. It also
appears that respondent No. 1 had approached the Supreme Court against the
order dated 11.05.2022 passed in Contempt Case No. 428/2021, wherein a
request was made to this Court to hear the parties and pass appropriate orders
as may be deemed fit.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants
were never impleaded as parties, either before the writ Court or in the
mutation proceedings, and that both the impugned orders have been passed
behind their back, without affording them any opportunity of hearing, despite
the fact that the appellants, being legal heirs of the original defendants to the
partition suit, are necessary and affected parties. It was further submitted that
respondent No. 1 had deliberately avoided impleading the appellants and had
instead framed the mutation application against “the public at large” so as to
secure a favourable order behind their back. It was also submitted that the
mutation Court had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order merely on the
ground that the writ Court had modified its order in the review petition,
inasmuch as the writ Court itself had not directed any reconsideration of the
previous mutation order. It was further urged that the question whether the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/30/2026 5:45:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:57781
5 WA-3197-2024
compromise decree has been complied with or satisfied can only be

examined in appropriate execution proceedings before a competent execution
Court, and not through a writ petition directing the revenue authorities to act.
Learned counsel additionally submitted that, after the family settlement, the
amount deposited by the writ petitioner was withdrawn and the execution
proceedings were themselves withdrawn, that no payment was made to the
appellants, and that no conveyance deed was ever executed in favour of the
writ petitioner, therefore, the writ petitioner was not entitled to seek mutation
of the property in the revenue record.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, per contra, submitted that
the appellants have no locus to challenge the mutation order, inasmuch as,
upon the family settlement, the appellants lost their right and title, and the
disputed property came to be allotted to respondent No. 1 in the partition. It
was further submitted that the conveyance deed which was executed
pertained to the property situated at Raisen, and not to the property at
Bhopal, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, and that the family
settlement contained no condition regarding execution of a sale deed or
payment of consideration, hence, there was no force in the argument
advanced on behalf of the appellants.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and without entering
into the merits of the underlying family dispute, this Court finds that three
questions arise for consideration:
Firstly, whether the appellant was necessary party in writ court and
revenue court ?
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/30/2026 5:45:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:57781
6 WA-3197-2024
Secondly, whether the order of the Tehsildar regarding mutation was

sustainable in law ?
Thirdly, whether the revenue Court has power to review its own earlier
order ?
10. It would be profitable, at this stage, to reproduce Section 32 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which reads as under:
“32. Inherent power of Revenue Courts. Nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court
to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent
the abuse of the process of the Court.”
11. Under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, a
Tehsildar does not possess any inherent or independent power under Section
32 to review its own prior order of mutation or of rights passed under
Sections 109/110 of the Code. The power of review is a creature of statute
and must be traceable to an express provision, it cannot be assumed merely
by invoking the inherent power preserved under Section 32. The said
provision preserves the inherent power of a revenue Court only to pass such
orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court, it cannot be pressed into service to undo a considered
order already passed, or to act as a substitute for a substantive power of
review. A revenue authority cannot, therefore, review its own order under
Section 32 unless a specific power of review is expressly conferred
elsewhere in the statute in respect of that proceeding.
12. Condition of family settlement are necessary to resolved the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/30/2026 5:45:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:57781
7 WA-3197-2024
dispute and reached the conclusion whether the appellant is necessary party

to the petition or mutation proceedings. Settlement condition is reproduce
here-
(a) That it is agreed that defendant V.M. Singh shall. pay a sum of
Rs.15 lakhs to Sat. Anteshwar Anand, Defendant No.8 on or before
30.6.1994:
(b) That Smt. Amteshwar Anand will have lien over 8 acres of land
falling to the share of shri V.M. Singh at Punjab Khor, Delhi which has
devolved... on Shri V. M. Singh by succession on the death of S. Maninder
Singh the father of Shri V.M. Singh who was the owner of 41.2 acres of land.
The lion will be till the said payment of Rs.15 lakhs is made by Shri V.M.
Singh to Smt. Anteshwar Anand.
(c) That Smt. Amteshwar Anand shall continue remain in possession
of 11 acres of land situated at. Punjab Khor which is in her possession in
pursuance the order of the Revenue Authority. dt. 28.5.1975. It is clarified
that Smt. Amteshwar Anand was in possession of 13 acres of land at said
village Punjab Khor and had sold two acres of the land.
(d) That Smt. Amteshwar Anand hereby acknowledges that she has
already received consideration, from Shri V. M. Singh in respect of her rights
which would have accrued on partition in respect of the entire properties
situated at Villages Behta, Borban and Laukheri, Teh. & District Bhopal and
also Village Pipal Kheria, Distt. Raisen (M.P:).
(e) That it is clarified that in view of the present settlement the rights,
title and interest in the land consisting of 44 acres of Village Pipal Kheria,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/30/2026 5:45:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:57781
8 WA-3197-2024
Raisen, standing in the of Shri Virendra Singh Anand son of Smt. Anteshwar

Anand who had purchased the said land Mrs. Aparna Bajpai shall devolve on
Shri V.M. Singh, name From Sot. Amteshwar Anand being a duly authorised
power of attorney holder of Shri Virendra Singh Anand, is authorised to give
the said consent.
(f) That Smt Amteshwar, Anand has relinquished, released, given up,
assigned all her rights, Litle and interest in all the moveable and immoveable
properties which are the subject matter of the present suit or such properties
which are, the subject matter of the suit No. 63 of 1975, subject clause (e)
aforesaid All these properties to the extent of the share of Smt. Anteshwar.
Anand shall deem to vest, be the exclusive properties of defendant Shri V.M.
Singh subject to the payment’s being made as specified aforesaid. V.M.
Singh shall be the owner of all interests, rights and benefits that have accrued
or may accrue in favour of Smt. Ambeshwar Anand and shall be deem to
have been assigned in his favour and he shall be treated as the exclusive
owner to the extent of share owned by Smt. Anteshwar Anand including the
shares devolving on her from late Sit Datar Singh, late Lady Satwant Datar
Singh, HUP otherwise.
(g) All the liabilities, litigations, consequential proceedings before the
revenue authorities otherwise shall be carried on by or Shri V.M. Singh
entirely at his responsibility and risk. Smt. Amteshwar Anand shall not be
liable or responsible directly or indirectly for any acts, deeds that Shri V.M.
Singh may do in regard to the property in question and he further assures that
he shall do all lawful acts and deeds under the law and assures that no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/30/2026 5:45:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:57781
9 WA-3197-2024
liability of any kind, civil or criminal, is attributed or taken against Smt.

Anteshwar Anand.
13. Appellant argued that, after the family settlement, the writ
petitioner withdrew the amount deposited in the executing Court, and the
execution proceedings were withdrawn. No payment was made to the
appellants, and no conveyance deed was executed in favour of the writ
petitioner. Therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get mutation in the
revenue record.
14. Respondent objected to the argument and stated that the
conveyance deed which was executed related to the property situated at
Raisen, and not at Bhopal. The disputed property is situated in Bhopal
District. In the family settlement, there was no condition regarding the
execution of a sale deed or payment of consideration. Hence, there is no
force in the argument of the appellant.
15. Conditions (a) to (c) of the settlement are related to the property
situated at Punjab and not to the property situated at Bhopal. Only conditions
(d) and (e) are related to the disputed property. Further, condition (g)
specifically states that all the liabilities, litigations, and consequential
proceedings before the revenue authorities or otherwise shall be carried on
by Shri V.M. Singh entirely at his own responsibility and risk. Therefore, the
appellants lost their rights in the disputed property.
16. The ancestors of the legal heirs and the appellants entered into the
family settlement and arrived at a compromise in the civil suit, which was
decreed by the High Court of Delhi. The decree passed in the partition suit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/30/2026 5:45:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:57781
10 WA-3197-2024
was never challenged by the ancestors of the petitioners, therefore, it is

binding upon the petitioners. Thus, the ancestors had already lost their
interest in the disputed property, therefore, the petitioners have no locus to
participate in the mutation proceedings or to challenge the mutation
proceedings by way of a writ petition. The petitioners are not necessary
parties to the mutation proceedings. Merely because the Hon'ble Supreme
Court granted liberty to implead them as parties in the contempt proceedings,
they would not become necessary parties in the mutation proceedings. The
appellants were impleaded as parties in the contempt proceedings, which
have already been disposed of. There is no order of the Apex Court directing
that the appellants be impleaded as necessary parties in any other
proceedings relating to the mutation.
17. Secondly, certainly, the Tehsildar has no power to recall its order
under Section 32 of the MPLRC. However, the respondent filed an
application before the Tehsildar in accordance with the order passed in the
review petition; therefore, a new ground arose to mutate the property in the
name of the respondent. Hence, the said application may be treated as one
under Section 109 of the MPLRC. Therefore, no illegality is found in the
order of mutation.
18. We are of the opinion that the appellants are not necessary parties
to the mutation proceedings in view of condition (g) of the compromise
decree, and that the Tehsildar has the power to pass a mutation order on a
fresh application if a new ground is available. The impugned order was
passed by the Tehsildar in pursuance of the order passed by the writ Court in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/30/2026 5:45:40 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:57781
11 WA-3197-2024
the review petition. Hence, no illegality or irregularity is found in the order

of the writ Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
Praveen

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
7/30/2026 5:45:40 PM