### Mandatory Hearing of All Legal Heirs is Essential for Valid Partition Under Section 178A of MPLRC Summary: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside an order of the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, emphasizing that under Section 178A of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Tahsildar must hear all legal heirs before ordering a partition during a Bhumiswami's lifetime. The Court held that the exclusion of the daughters from the partition proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar rendered the process and the subsequent order void. Citing the precedent in *Bhogiram vs. Gannibai*, the Court reaffirmed that "legal heirs" includes all eligible successors, and failure to implead them or issue notices violates mandatory statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Tahsildar to conduct fresh proceedings after impleading all legal heirs, including the daughters.

The petitioners (daughters of late Bahadur Singh) challenged an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar, which set aside a previous order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO).

During Bahadur Singh’s lifetime, his sons and wife allegedly colluded with revenue authorities to record a partition under Section 178A of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, without disclosing or impleading the daughters.

The petitioners, claiming lack of knowledge of the 2018 partition, appealed to the SDO in 2022. The SDO condoned the delay and set aside the partition, noting that the mandatory procedure was not followed.

However, the Additional Commissioner reversed the SDO's decision on the ground that the subsequent purchasers (respondents No. 1 to 3) were not heard by the SDO.

1. Whether it is mandatory to implead and hear all legal heirs in partition proceedings conducted under Section 178A of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.

2. Whether the Additional Commissioner was justified in setting aside the SDO's order instead of remanding the matter for a fresh hearing involving all necessary parties.

Section 178A of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which stipulates that a Bhumiswami may partition his holding "amongst his legal heirs" and the Tahsildar may divide the holding only "after hearing the legal heirs".

The court relied on the precedent set in Bhogiram vs. Gannibai (WP No. 4723 of 2020) and Brijmohan vs. Smt. Kastoori (MP No. 3718 of 2019), which established that the term "legal heirs" encompasses all heirs, and failure to issue notices to any one heir invalidates the partition proceedings as it violates mandatory statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.

The court reasoned that Section 178A requires the Tahsildar to hear all legal heirs to ensure a valid partition. In this case, the petitioners (daughters) were admittedly legal heirs but were neither impleaded nor heard during the 2018 proceedings.

Under current succession laws, daughters have an equal right in their father's property, and their exclusion rendered the Tahsildar's order per se illegal.

While the Additional Commissioner noted that the SDO failed to hear the purchasers, the court found that the Commissioner erred by simply setting aside the SDO's order. Since the original partition was fundamentally flawed due to the non-participation of the daughters, the appropriate legal recourse was to remand the matter to the primary authority (Tahsildar) to adjudicate the partition afresh with all necessary parties.

The matter was remanded to the Tahsildar with directions to implead all legal heirs—including the daughters—and pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity for a hearing within 90 days. No order as to costs.