Sunil Kumar Mudgal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21193
1 WP-6873-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 16 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6873 of 2026
SUNIL KUMAR MUDGAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Katare - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Shiraj Qureshi - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan- Advocate for respondent No.10.
Shri Akshat Kumar Jain- Advocate for respondent No.11.
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed
against the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Additional Collector,
District Sheopur in Revision No.337/2024-25, whereby the patta granted in
favour of Geeta Bai W/o Kailash Narayan Brahman and Savitri Devi W/o
Raghuvardayal, both residents of Village Karahal, Tehsil Karahal, District
Sheopur, has been cancelled on the ground that the same were doubtful.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although, by the
impugned order, the pattas granted in favour of Geeta Bai, Savitri Devi and
certain other persons have been cancelled, the undisputed fact remains that
both Geeta Bai and Savitri Devi had expired much prior to the passing of the
impugned order. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order, having
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/17/2026
3:21:16 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21193
2 WP-6873-2026
been passed against dead persons, is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot

be sustained.
It is further submitted that the delay in filing the present petition
occurred on account of the fact that petitioner No.1, being the son of Geeta
Bai, and petitioner No.2, who had purchased the land in question from the
son of Savitri Devi, acquired knowledge of the impugned order only when
petitioner No.2 approached the revenue authorities for mutation of his name
on the basis of the registered sale deed. It is submitted that petitioner No.1
was never impleaded or noticed during the proceedings before the Additional
Collector despite being the legal representative of deceased Geeta Bai and,
therefore, had no knowledge of the impugned proceedings. Immediately
upon acquiring knowledge of the impugned order, the petitioners approached
this Court. It is, thus, submitted that the delay is neither deliberate nor so
inordinate as to warrant dismissal of the petition on the ground of delay and
laches. Accordingly, prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned
order insofar as it relates to the pattas granted in favour of Geeta Bai and
Savitri Devi and for remitting the matter to the competent authority for fresh
consideration.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that a detailed
reply shall be filed shortly. However, he has orally opposed the contentions
advanced on behalf of the petitioners. At the outset, he submits that the
impugned order was passed in September, 2024, whereas the present petition
has been filed only in February, 2026, after an unexplained delay of
approximately one and a half years. It is contended that, since the petitioners
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/17/2026
3:21:16 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21193
3 WP-6873-2026
have failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for such inordinate delay,

the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches alone.
I n support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the
respondents/State placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matters of State of M.P. and Another vs. Bhailal Bhai
reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and
Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108.
It is further submitted that the petitioners had an alternative
efficacious remedy of appeal/revision under the provisions of the Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code and, without exhausting the said statutory
remedies, have directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Therefore, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in
(2021) 6 SCC 771, Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada vs. Glaxo
Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited reported in (2020) 19 SCC 681
and Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir
reported in (2022) 5 SCC 345, the present petition is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State further submits that the
present case involves fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of material facts,
and manipulation of official records, therefore, the cancellation of the patta
granted in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners cannot be
said to be illegal or unsustainable in law. It is contended that the competent
authority has rightly cancelled the patta solely on the ground that it was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/17/2026
3:21:16 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21193
4 WP-6873-2026
obtained by fraud, and such action does not warrant any interference by this

Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance
upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu (Dead) by LRs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs, reported in (1994) 1
SCC 1; A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh &
Ors., reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221; and Meghmala & Ors. vs. G.
Narashimha Reddy & Ors., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 .
On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
respondents/State prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that
they have also challenged the impugned order before the Commissioner by
filing an appeal and, since they too were not afforded an adequate
opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order, the same
deserves to be set aside.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
The foremost question which arises for consideration before this Court
is whether an order passed against dead persons can be sustained in the eyes
of law.
The factum of death of Geeta Bai on 14.07.2022 and that of Savitri
Devi in the year 2009 has not been disputed by the respondents. Petitioner
No.1 claims through deceased Geeta Bai being her son, whereas petitioner
No.2 claims through the son of deceased Savitri Devi by virtue of a
registered sale deed. Thus, both the petitioners derive their rights through
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/17/2026
3:21:16 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21193
5 WP-6873-2026
persons who had admittedly expired much prior to the passing of the

impugned order. It is a well-settled principle of law that any order passed
either against or in favour of a dead person is a nullity. Admittedly, while
passing the impugned order dated 30.09.2024, the competent authority
neither took steps to bring the legal representatives of deceased Geeta Bai
and Savitri Devi on record nor afforded them any opportunity of hearing.
Consequently, insofar as the impugned order pertains to the pattas granted in
favour of Geeta Bai W/o Kailash Narayan Brahman and Savitri Devi W/o
Raghuvardayal, the same cannot be sustained in law.
The objection raised by the respondents/State regarding delay and
laches also does not merit acceptance. Once this Court has found that the
impugned order, insofar as it concerns deceased Geeta Bai and Savitri Devi,
is a nullity having been passed against dead persons, the plea of delay and
laches cannot be permitted to defeat the challenge to such an order.
Accordingly, the said objection is rejected. The judgments relied by the State
in this regard have no applicability.
So far as the contention regarding availability of alternative remedy is
concerned, the same also cannot be accepted, since the order impugned has
been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice and is a nullity.
In the aforesaid situation, the judgments cited by the State would not apply.
The contention regarding the patta being doubtful or obtained by
means of fraud, misrepresentation etc., is concerned, the same can be
rebutted/controverted by the petitioners when they are afforded opportunity,
thus, has no force. The judgments, thus, citing in this regard has no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/17/2026
3:21:16 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:21193
6 WP-6873-2026
applicability.

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents/State placed before
this Court a copy of the proposed reply, which, according to him, is to be
formally filed. Upon perusal thereof, this Court finds that the contents of the
proposed reply substantially stand covered by the oral submissions advanced
on behalf of the respondents/State during the course of hearing. Therefore,
non-filing of the formal reply will not cause any prejudice to the
respondent/State as this Court has duly considered all the submissions
advanced on their behalf.
Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Additional
Collector, District Sheopur in Revision No.337/2024-25, insofar as it relates
to the cancellation of the pattas granted in favour of Geeta Bai W/o Kailash
Narayan Brahman and Savitri Devi W/o Raghuvardayal, is hereby set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the concerned authority for fresh
adjudication, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity
of hearing to the legal representative(s) of the aforesaid deceased persons as
well as all other interested parties.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition
stands allowed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
VJ

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 7/17/2026
3:21:16 PM