Proceedings conducted against a deceased person are a nullity and non est in law.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, which affirmed the SDO’s dismissal of their appeal regarding a partition dispute

In 2019, Respondents 1 to 4 filed for partition of agricultural land in Village Toda before the Tehsildar (Case No. 20/2018-19/A-27)

The Tehsildar ordered the partition on 05.12.2019. The petitioners appealed this to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and subsequently to the Additional Commissioner, both of whom dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tehsildar’s order

The petitioners contended that one of the recorded co-sharers, Narayani Bai, had died on 23.09.2015—four years before the partition proceedings commenced—yet she was kept as a party, and no steps were taken to bring her legal representatives on record

1. Whether partition proceedings and subsequent orders conducted against a deceased co-sharer without impleading their legal representatives are legally sustainable?

2. Whether the appellate authorities failed to exercise their jurisdiction by ignoring the material fact of a party's death prior to the institution of the suit?

The Court applied the principles of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code regarding partition and appeals under Section 44

It primarily relied on the settled legal principle that any proceeding conducted against a dead person is a nullity and non est (does not exist) in the eyes of law

furthermore, it emphasized the Principles of Natural Justice, which mandate that all interested parties or their legal representatives must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before their rights are adjudicated

The Court found it undisputed that Narayani Bai, a co-sharer, died in 2015, whereas the partition application was moved in 2019

The Court reasoned that the failure of the revenue authorities to substitute the deceased's legal representatives "strikes at the root of the proceedings," rendering the entire exercise void ab initio

It criticized the SDO and the Additional Commissioner for dismissing the appeals in a mechanical manner without addressing this fundamental jurisdictional defect, despite the fact being specifically raised by the petitioners

The Court concluded that the lack of signatures or consent from the petitioners in the original record further demonstrated a violation of natural justice and a non-application of mind by the quasi-judicial authorities

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders dated 05.12.2019 (Tehsildar), 04.01.2022 (SDO), and 21.12.2023 (Additional Commissioner). The matter was remanded to the Tehsildar to be considered afresh, with specific directions to bring the legal representatives of deceased Narayani Bai on record, afford all parties a due opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned, speaking order strictly in accordance with the law