Writ courts will not reappreciate revenue partition findings absent jurisdictional error, perversity, or procedural illegality.

Respondents 1 and 2 sought partition under Section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code of jointly held agricultural land at village Chiruli, Tehsil Dabra.

The Tehsildar ordered partition on 12 February 2014.

The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the petitioners’ appeal and set aside that order on 31 March 2015; on the respondents’ further appeal, the Additional Commissioner set aside the SDO’s order and restored the Tehsildar’s partition order on 22 August 2017.

The petitioners challenged the Additional Commissioner’s order under Article 226, alleging defects in publication, the Patwari’s partition Fard, identification of allotted land, and opportunity to be heard

1. Whether the Additional Commissioner erred in restoring the Tehsildar’s partition order despite the petitioners’ alleged procedural defects in the partition proceedings

2. Whether the Additional Commissioner’s order disclosed a jurisdictional error, perversity, violation of natural justice, or manifest illegality warranting interference under Article 226

Section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code governs partition proceedings concerning jointly held land

Under Article 226, the High Court exercises supervisory rather than appellate jurisdiction over decisions of competent statutory authorities; it does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its view merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted where an order involves patent jurisdictional error, perversity, violation of natural justice, or manifest illegality

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court found from the revenue record that notice and publication had been effected, no objection had been received, and the Patwari had prepared and published the partition Fard before the Tehsildar made the partition order

It held that the petitioners had not established, beyond oral submissions, that the proceedings lacked notice, violated natural justice, or disregarded a mandatory statutory requirement.

The Additional Commissioner had considered the SDO’s order and the record while exercising appellate jurisdiction; the Court found no demonstrated jurisdictional error or other ground meeting the threshold for writ interference

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the Tehsildar’s partition order remained restored