Smt. Amrita Singh vs Smt. Anita Singh Chouhan

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51628
1 WP-23531-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
th
ON THE 10 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 23531 of 2026
SMT. AMRITA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. ANITA SINGH CHOUHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akhilesh Jain - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri Suyash Thakur - Govt. Advocate for State.
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :
(i) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 passed in revenue case
No.0153/Appeal/2024-25 passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Sagar (Annexure P-7).
(ii) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances
of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of this
petition.
2. Challenge is made to the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 passed by
the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar whereby the appeal
preferred by the private respondents No.1 to 3 was allowed and the order of
Sub-Divisional Officer, Lavkush Nagar District Chhatarpur dated 07.12.2023
was set aside.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Bahadur Singh had
ancestral land bearing Khasra No. 75/2/1, 75/2/2, 113, 130/2 situated at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:28:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51628
2 WP-23531-2026
Village Sirha Biran Tahsil Chandla District Chhatarpur. The petitioners No.1

and 2 and respondent No.7 are daughters; late Rohit and respondent No.5 are
sons and respondent No.6 is the wife of Bahadur Singh. Bahadur Singh and
his son Rohit died during pendency of the appeal before the Additional
Commissioner Sagar Division Sagar. The respondents No.1 to 3 are
purchasers of part of disputed land. During lifetime of late Bahadur Singh,
the sons and wife of Bahadur Singh in collusion with revenue authorities by
Namantaran Panji No. 05/Sirha/2017-18 dated 09.09.2018 got recorded
partition under Section 178A of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for
whole properties of Bahadur Singh.
4. It is submitted by the petitioners' counsel that names of all legal
representatives of Bahadur Singh were not disclosed to the revenue
authorities. On 01.08.2022, when the petitioners came to their parental
house, they came to know about the illegal partition by which the disputed
land has been recorded in the name of respondents No. 4 to 6. As the
petitioners were not party to the proceedings, they were having no
knowledge about passing of the order dated 09.09.2018. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Luvkush Nagar
along with applications for condonation of delay, interim relief and leave to
file appeal. On 04.08.2022, interim order was granted and the operation of
impugned order was stayed. The same was immediately communicated to
the Tahsildar Chandla and Sub-Registrar Luvkush Nagar as the respondents
No.4 to 6 were trying to alienate the property. After hearing the parties, the
Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the application for condonation of delay and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:28:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51628
3 WP-23531-2026
finally vide order dated 07.12.2023, the appeal was allowed making a

specific observation that daughters of Bahadur Singh have a right in the
properties but they were not impleaded in the proceedings before the
Tahsildar. The procedure prescribed under Section 178A of the M.P. Land
Revenue Code was not followed in the matter. The respondents No.1 to 3
purporting to the purchasers of part of disputed land filed an appeal before
the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar assailing the order of
Sub-Divisional Officer which was registered as Case No. 153/Appeal/2024-
25 and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated 26.02.2026 setting
aside the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 07.12.2023.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that under Section 178A of the M.P.
Land Revenue Code, the Tahsildar can only pass an order after hearing all
the parties to the proceedings. All the legal heirs should be made a party to
the proceedings and only thereafter, the Tahsildar can pass an order. The
aforesaid aspect has lost sight of by the revenue authorities and the
Additional Commissioner has arbitrarily set aside the order of Sub-
Divisional Officer. The ground raised by the petitioners with respect to non-
impleadment as a party to the proceedings before the Tahsildar was not taken
into consideration. The Additional Commissioner has recorded a finding that
the Sub-Divisional Officer had neither issued any notice nor granted any
opportunity of hearing to the appellants; therefore, the order impugned is per
se illegal.
6. To buttress his contentions, petitioners' counsel has placed reliance on
the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bhogiram
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:28:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51628
4 WP-23531-2026
and another vs Gannibai : WP No. 4723 of 2020 (Gwalior Bench) decided on

25.02.2020 wherein the Court has considered the provisions of Section 178A
of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and has observed that it is mandatory to hear
all the legal heirs by the Tahsildar and failure to issue notices to all legal
heirs invalidates the partition proceedings. The Court relied upon the
judgment passed in the case of Brijmohan vs Smt. Kastoori : MP No. 3718
of 2019 decided on 03.03.2020. On these grounds, interference is being
sought in the matter.
7. Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned
order. It is submitted that the Additional Commissioner came to the
conclusion that the appellants were not made party to the proceedings. No
notices were issued to them nor any opportunity of hearing was granted by
the Sub-Divisional Officer prior to passing such order. Therefore, the order
dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was unsustainable;
therefore, rightly set aside by the learned Additional Commissioner vide
impugned order.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. It is not disputed that the partition took place on 09.09.2018 by the
Tahsildar in proceedings under Section 178A of the M.P. Land Revenue
Code. Section 178A of the Code is relevant and reads as under :
“178-A. Partition of land in life time of Bhumiswami.—(1) If any
Bhumiswami wishes to partition his holding assessed for purpose of
agriculture under section 59 or any part thereof amongst his legal heirs
during his life time, he may apply for partition of such holding or part
thereof to the Tahsildar.
(2) The Tahsildar may after hearing the legal heirs divide the holding
or part thereof and apportion the assessment in accordance with the
rules made under this Code.”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:28:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51628
5 WP-23531-2026
10. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that in partition

cases, all the parties are required to be impleaded in the proceedings under
Section 178A of the M.P. Land Revenue Code including all legal heirs. The
coordinate Bench of this Court in Bhogiram's case (supra) has considered the
aforesaid aspect. The use of words 'amongst his legal heirs' makes it clear
that all legal heirs are necessary party to the partition proceedings in a
proceeding under Section 178A of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the
Tahsildar. It is a specific case of the petitioners that they were not made party
before the Tahsildar being daughters and the daughters are also having right
in the property of their father. As the petitioners were not party to the
proceedings, therefore, factum of passing of order dated 09.09.2018 was not
brought to their knowledge. It came to their knowledge only on 01.08.2022
when they went to their parental home and immediately thereafter, they
preferred an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer against the order passed by
the Tahsildar. The interim order was granted on 04.08.2022 and finally the
Sub-Divisional Officer has allowed the appeal condoning the delay vide
order dated 07.12.2023.
11. The Sub-Divisional Officer Luvkush Nagar District Chhatarpur has
observed that after division by the Tahsildar, no property is conferred to the
petitioners and respondent No.7 (daughters of Bahadur Singh). The SDO has
considered the relevant provisions of Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue
Code and has observed that the proper procedure has not been followed by
the Tahsildar, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and
directed for correcting the revenue records. If the arguments advanced before
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:28:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51628
6 WP-23531-2026
this Court are taken note of coupled with the provisions of Section 178A of

the M.P. Land Revenue Code as well as the judgment passed in Bhogiram's
case (supra), it is apparently clear that the daughters of late Bahadur Singh
have not been given any share in the property in question.
12. The relevant extracts of the judgment in Bhogiram's case (supra) reads
as under :
(9) The case in hand is squarely covered by order dated 03/03/2020
passed by this Court in the case of Brijmohan and Others vs. Smt.
Kastoori and Others [MP 3718 of 2019], which reads as under:-
''It is clear from application (Annexure P/2) that it was filed under
Section 178 of MPLR Code and not under Section 178-A of MPLR
Code. It is specifically mentioned in the said application that all the
applicants are members of the joint Hindu family and were jointly in
possession of agricultural land and after mutual partition, they are in
possession of the land, which has fallen to their respective shares and
accordingly, prayer was made that the partition be made as per the
land, which is in their possession.
From the contents of the said application, it is clear that the said
application was not under Section 178-A of MPLR Code, but it was
under Section 178 of MPLR Code. Even otherwise for the sake of
argument, if the application Annexure P/2 is considered to be an
application under Section 178-A of MPLR Code, still this Court is of
considered opinion that the said proceeding was vitiated.
Section 178-A of MPLR Code reads as under:-
"178-A. Partition of land in life time of Bhumiswami.-(1) If any
Bhumiswami wishes to partition his holding assessed for purpose of
agriculture under Section 59 or any part thereof amongst his legal heirs
during his life time, he may apply for partition of such holding or part
thereof to the Tahsildar.
(2) The Tahsildar may after hearing the legal heirs divide the holding
or part thereof and apportion the assessment in accordance with the
rules made under this Code."
The use of words "amongst his legal heirs" in Section 178-A of MPLR
Code and the use of word "legal heirs" in sub- Section 2 Section 178-A
of MPLR Code makes it clear that the Naib Tahsildar should have
given an opportunity of hearing to all the legal heirs and not to some of
the legal heirs mentioned in the application.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that in fact only those
legal heirs are required to be heard amongst whom the Bhumiswami
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:28:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51628
7 WP-23531-2026
has decided to partition his holding. The submission made by the
counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. The use of the word
"legal heirs" cannot be confined to those legal heirs amongst whom the
Bhumiswami, has decided to partition his holding otherwise the
legislature would not have used the words "amongst his legal heirs."
The use of words "amongst his legal heirs" would mean all legal heirs
of Bhumiswami. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that Kastoori
was also one of the legal heir of Bhaggu but she was neither heard nor
any notice was given. Thus, it is clear that the partition proceedings,
which have taken place in the year 1999, were vitiated.
So far as, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that since the
appeal filed by the respondent No.1 was dismissed as barred by time,
therefore, the Commissioner, Gwalior, Division Gwalior should not
have decided the appeal on merits and at the best could have remanded
the matter back to the Court of SDO after condoning the delay is
concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, the submission
made by the counsel for the petitioners, appears to be correct.
However, if the facts and circumstances of the case are considered,
then it is clear that there is nothing on record to show that any notice
was issued to respondent No.1 as well as the Fard Batwara was ever
published. In order to find out as to whether there was any sufficient
cause for condonation of delay or not, the findings as to whether the
respondent No.1 was a necessary party or not, were essential.
Accordingly, it is held that no prejudice has been caused to the
petitioners merely because the appellate authority has quashed the
partition proceedings instead of remanding the matter back to the SDO,
Bhitarwar for decision on merits. When the order of partition is bad
because of non compliance of the mandatory provisions as well as
because of non compliance of principle of natural justice, then it would
have been a futile attempt on the part of the Additional Commissioner
to remand the matter after holding that the respondent No.1 was a
necessary party.
Even for the sake of argument that the Additional Commissioner
should have remanded the matter to the SDO, Bhitarwar for
adjudication on merits then in the teeth of findings given by Additional
Commissioner, Gwalior that the respondent No.1 was a necessary party
and the partition proceedings have taken place without issuing any
notice to her, then nothing was left for the SDO, Bhitarwar District
Gwalior to adjudicate on the merits.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division
Gwalior does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.''

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:28:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51628
8 WP-23531-2026
13. If the aforesaid judgment is applied to the facts and circumstances of

the present case, then it is apparently clear that the Sub-Divisional Officer
has rightly considered the aspect and has quashed the order of Tahsildar and
directed for correcting the revenue records. The learned Additional
Commissioner has set aside the well-reasoned order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer and has failed to consider the arguments advanced by the
petitioners. Once the Additional Commissioner himself has arrived at a
conclusion that the appellants were not made party to the proceedings before
the Sub-Divisional Officer nor any notice was issued to them and they were
also not granted any opportunity of hearing, in all fairness, the learned
Additional Commissioner should have remanded the matter back to the Sub-
Divisional Officer for reconsideration and for impleadment of all the parties
to the proceedings and it is only thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer should
have decided the matter afresh. The record further indicates that all legal
heirs were not even made party to the proceedings before the Tahsildar.
Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 passed by
the Additional Commissioner is per se illegal and unsustainable. The same is
set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tahsildar for reconsideration of
the case. The Tahsildar is directed to decide the matter afresh after
impleading all legal heirs of late Bahudur Singh including daughters in the
proceedings under Section 178A of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and after
providing opportunity of hearing to them and thereafter pass a fresh order.
The entire exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:28:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:51628
9 WP-23531-2026
14. In above terms, the petition stands disposed of finally. No order as to

costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
VV

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 17-07-2026
18:28:43