JABALPUR, India, June 13 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 11:

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

7.1 To call for the entire records of the learned Courts below for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

7.2 To issue an appropriate writ/direction to set aside the orders dated 7/12/2012 (Ann.P-4) passed by the Learned Revenue Board Gwalior and 15/5/2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Learned Naib Tehsildar and further be pleased to restore the order of the Learned SDO dated 31/7/2008 (Ann.P-2) and order dated 19/6/2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Commissioner Rewa, Division Rewa (M.P.), in the interest of justice.

7.3 Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted together with the cost of the present case.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had applied for partition under Section 178 of the MPLRC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code of 1959', for the sake of brevity). On the said application, the petitioner had taken objection that the respondent is not recorded as a Bhumiswami in the revenue records, therefore, he cannot file such an application. On that objection, the Tehsildar had stayed the proceedings for three months, as per the proviso of Section 178 of the Code of 1959 directing the petitioner to file a Civil Suit before the competent Civil Court of law. Thereafter, he resumed the proceedings after three months and passed an order under Section 178 of the Code of 1959 vide order dated 15.05.2008 Annexure P/1. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order which was allowed vide order dated 31.07.2008 Annexure P/2 against which second appeal was filed by the respondent which was dismissed vide order dated 19.06.2009 Annexure P/3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 19.06.2009 Annexure P/3, respondent had preferred a revision which was decided by the impugned order dated 07.12.2012 Annexure P/4 allowing the revision and affirming the order of the Tehsildar. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from bare perusal of the provision of Section 178, it is clear that if on any holding there are more than one Bhumiswami, then any such Bhumiswami may apply to the Tehsildar for partition of his share in the holding. If any question of title is raised before the Tehsildar, then the Tehsildar shall stay the proceedings before him for a period of three months to facilitate institution of civil suit for determination of the question of title.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/storage/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2013/WP/504/WP_504_2013_FinalOrder_11-05-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.