Devendra Singh vs Sheela Devi

1 WP-15170-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 4 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 15170 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030107362026
DEVENDRA SINGH
Versus
SHEELA DEVI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Faiz Ahmad - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anvesh Jain - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2023
passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, in Case
No.208/2017-18/Appeal, whereby the second appeal preferred by the
petitioner has been dismissed, affirming the order dated 25.10.2017 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ambah, District Morena.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question
was initially recorded in the name of Ramlal, husband of respondent No.1
and father of respondents No.2 to 4. It is submitted that the Tahsildar, vide
order dated 06.06.2014, had allowed the mutation in favour of the petitioner
on the basis of a Will and declared him as Bhumiswami. However, the
appeal preferred by respondent No.1 against the aforesaid order though was
hopelessly barred by limitation, was allowed by the SDO vide order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 11/5/2026
3:03:19 PM

2 WP-15170-2026
25.10.2017. It is further submitted that the Additional Commissioner also

failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in the second appeal
and erroneously dismissed the same. Thus, challenging the aforesaid orders it
is prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside being wholly perverse
and illegal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material
available on record.
4. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the first appellate
authority allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 without properly
considering the question of delay in filing the same. The petitioner has also
questioned the findings recorded by the appellate authorities on merits with
regard to the mutation proceedings and the effect of the Will relied upon by
him.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned orders, this Court does not
find any perversity, jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference
in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India. Admittedly, on the basis of a disputed Will name cannot be mutated
in the revenue records.
6. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and is not intended to be
exercised as an appellate jurisdiction for re-appreciation of the entire factual
matrix. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate authority has
acted beyond its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 11/5/2026
3:03:19 PM

3 WP-15170-2026
has committed a patent error of law resulting in manifest injustice. In the

present case, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the Sub
Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner committed any
jurisdictional error or material illegality while passing the impugned orders
dated 25.10.2017 and 29.03.2023. The grounds raised by the petitioner
essentially relates to disputed questions concerning title, succession and the
validity and effect of the Will, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in
mutation proceedings.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any
ground warranting interference with the impugned order dated 29.03.2023
passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, or the
order dated 25.10.2017 passed by the S.D.O., Ambah, District
Morena. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is
hereby dismissed.
8. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the
competent civil Court by filing an appropriate civil suit for declaration of his
rights, title and interest over the property in question, along with
consequential reliefs, if so advised. In case such a suit is filed, the same shall
be decided by the competent civil Court on its own merits, in accordance
with law, without being influenced by the orders passed by the revenue
authorities or the observations made hereinabove.
9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the claim of either party regarding title or ownership of the
disputed property.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 11/5/2026
3:03:19 PM

4 WP-15170-2026
10. With the aforesaid liberty and observations, the petition stands

disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NEETU
SHASHANK
Signing time: 11/5/2026
3:03:19 PM