Only the Bhumiswami may initiate lifetime partition; all legal heirs must be heard.

The petitioner, Rupaji, was recorded as the Bhumiswami of the agricultural lands.

Respondent No. 1, his son Manohar Singh, applied before the Tahsildar under Sections 178/178-A of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC), seeking partition of the lands.

The Tahsildar proceeded with the matter, recorded an alleged consent/statement of Rupaji, and ordered partition and consequential mutation in favour of Manohar Singh and thereafter his son Tilak Singh.

Rupaji challenged the order before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), who held that the proceedings were not maintainable and directed restoration of the revenue entries in Rupaji’s name.

The Commissioner allowed Manohar Singh’s second appeal, principally holding that the SDO had failed to decide the delay-condonation application and that an appeal against a consent order was not maintainable.

During the writ proceedings, Rupaji’s daughters were permitted to intervene as alleged legal heirs, contending that they had not been impleaded or heard in the partition proceedings.

1. Whether the partition proceedings initiated by the petitioner’s son under Sections 178/178-A of the MPLRC were maintainable when the recorded Bhumiswami himself had not applied for partition.

2. Whether the partition and mutation orders were vitiated by failure to implead and hear all legal heirs/co-sharers of the recorded Bhumiswami, as required under Section 178-A(2) of the MPLRC.

3. Whether the Commissioner erred in setting aside the SDO’s order on the ground that the proceeding was based on consent and that the appeal was not maintainable.

4. Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the disputed consent and alleged forgery.

The Court applied Sections 178 and 178-A of the MPLRC, holding that Section 178 permits a Bhumiswami/co-tenure holder to seek partition, while Section 178-A permits the Bhumiswami to partition agricultural land among his legal heirs during his lifetime, only after the legal heirs are heard.

Section 44 of the MPLRC governs appeals and second appeals against orders of Revenue Officers.

The Court relied on the certiorari principles in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai , under which Article 226 jurisdiction may be exercised for jurisdictional errors, violation of natural justice, or patent errors of law, but not merely to reappreciate facts.

It also considered the principle from Manjunath Tirakappa Malagi v. Gurusiddappa Tirakappa Malagi that a consent order must ordinarily be challenged before the authority that recorded it, and the decisions in Awadh Narayan Sahu v. Hemendra Kumar Sahu and Anand Chaudhary v. State of M.P. concerning consent-based revenue partition, mutation, and the legal significance of revenue entries.

The Court further applied the principle that mutation and partition proceedings affecting the interests of legal heirs must comply with the statutory hearing requirements and principles of natural justice.

The Court found that the lands stood recorded in Rupaji’s name and that the application had been made by his son, who was not shown to be the recorded Bhumiswami entitled to invoke the statutory partition mechanism.

The Court held that Section 178-A contemplated an application by the Bhumiswami for partition among his legal heirs, followed by a hearing of those heirs; however, Rupaji’s daughters and other legal heirs were not impleaded or heard.

The alleged consent of Rupaji could not cure these defects, particularly because he denied appearing or signing the relevant documents and produced a handwriting-expert report disputing the signatures.

The disproportionate allocation of land, under which the major portion was transferred away from Rupaji, further reinforced the Court’s conclusion that the statutory procedure had not been properly followed.

Accordingly, the SDO’s intervention was found consistent with law, whereas the Commissioner had wrongly interfered by treating the proceeding as a valid consent-based partition and by relying on procedural grounds without addressing the foundational defects in jurisdiction and natural justice.

These defects constituted patent illegality and justified exercise of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226.

It held that the proceedings under Sections 178/178-A of the MPLRC were not maintainable in the manner initiated by the son, that the failure to implead and hear all legal heirs vitiated the partition proceedings, and that the alleged consent did not validate the defective process.

The Commissioner’s order dated 31 January 2024 was set aside, the SDO’s order was restored, and the revenue authorities were directed to restore the revenue entries in Rupaji’s name in accordance with law, preferably within 30 days from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

The intervention application filed by Rupaji’s daughters was allowed.