Service of summons by affixation and grant of equal shares preclude claims of procedural prejudice or lack of consent in partition proceedings.

The Tahsildar, acting under Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, passed an order on 10.09.2004 recording a land partition based on a consensual fard pulli (partition table).

The Petitioner challenged this order, claiming he never signed the table and was never served with notice.

His first appeal was dismissed on 30.06.2005.

While the Additional Commissioner (Second Appeal) set aside the partition on 25.02.2011, the Board of Revenue reinstated the original partition order on 10.01.2014.

The Petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Board’s order.

1. Whether a partition order passed under Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code is valid if one co-sharer has not signed the partition table but was served notice.

2. Whether the High Court, under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, can interfere with factual findings regarding service of summons and apportionment of shares.

Section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code regarding the partition of holdings.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which limits High Court intervention to correcting jurisdictional errors or patent perversity rather than acting as a court of appeal.

Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim (1983) 4 SCC 566, establishing that supervisory jurisdiction is limited to seeing that inferior courts function within their authority.

Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, which held that Article 227 should be exercised sparingly to promote public confidence and not merely to grant relief in individual cases.

The Court examined the revenue records and found that while the Petitioner had not signed the fard pulli, he was given an equal share to other co-sharers, thus suffering no prejudice.

Regarding the allegation of non-service, the Court noted that the summons were served via affixation at the Petitioner’s undisputed address in the presence of witnesses.

Since the Petitioner failed to produce affidavits from those witnesses to rebut the process server's endorsement, the Court upheld the validity of the service.

Applying the principles from Mohd. Yunus and Shalini Shyam Shetty, the Court determined that because the Tahsildar acted within his jurisdiction and followed natural justice by issuing notice, there was no "patent perversity" or "jurisdictional error" warranting interference under Article 227.

The Court held that it cannot embark upon a "roving enquiry" into factual apportionments under its supervisory jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Court found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and dismissed the petition as sans merit.