Writ jurisdiction cannot disturb concurrent revenue findings absent patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

The petitioner claimed a three-fourths undivided share in Survey No. 94, measuring 2.110 hectares, acquired through a registered sale deed; the respondents allegedly held the remaining one-fourth share.

He initiated partition proceedings under Section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

The Tehsildar issued notices, obtained a proposed partition report from the Patwari, conducted a spot inspection, considered the objections, and allowed the partition application by order dated 12.12.2024.

On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dabra, set aside the Tehsildar’s order on the ground that the prescribed partition procedure had not been followed, all co-sharers had not received an effective opportunity of hearing, and the proposed partition suffered from procedural infirmities.

The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Additional Collector, Gwalior, affirmed that order in revision on 27.02.2026.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should interfere with concurrent findings of the appellate and revisional revenue authorities concerning procedural non-compliance in partition proceedings under Section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

Whether the remand of the partition proceedings for fresh adjudication, after compliance with the statutory procedure and after affording all co-sharers an effective opportunity of hearing, caused legally actionable prejudice to the petitioner.

The Court applied Section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, governing partition of joint holdings, along with the procedural requirements applicable to partition proceedings, including notice, effective hearing of all co-sharers, and preparation of the partition proposal in accordance with law.

It also applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that affected parties be afforded a meaningful opportunity of hearing.

Regarding judicial review, the Court held that Article 226 jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised to substitute the High Court’s factual assessment for concurrent findings of revenue authorities; interference is warranted only where such findings disclose patent illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity, or violation of natural justice.

The appellate authority had found that the statutory procedure for partition was not properly followed, that all co-sharers were not given an effective opportunity of hearing, and that the proposed partition report contained procedural defects.

The revisional authority independently examined the record and concurred with those findings.

The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to identify any material demonstrating perversity, jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or denial of natural justice in the concurrent orders.

Since the impugned orders merely required the Tehsildar to reconsider the partition application in accordance with the prescribed procedure and after hearing all concerned parties, the Court found that no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner warranting writ interference.

The remand for fresh adjudication was found to advance procedural fairness and did not prejudice the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the orders affirming remand of the partition proceedings were allowed to stand.