Revenue Authorities Can't Decide Title Disputes In Partition Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that revenue authorities exercising powers under Section 178 of the MP Land Revenue Code cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title, and any person claiming to be a Bhumiswami without being recorded as such in revenue records must seek a declaration from a competent civil court. 

The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed; 

"when the person has to assert his title for claiming his share in the land by getting it partitioned, then the revenue authority has no jurisdiction because it requires evidence and proof which is not permissible and cannot be adjudicated by the revenue authorities and that is only the civil Court which can adjudicate the question of title on the basis of the available evidence. Any person who is not recorded as a Bhumiswami, if the Tehsildar has to adjudicate the matter that he is having title and interest as a joint owner or a Bhumiswami, then he has to relegate the matter to the Civil Court, as per the proviso". 

The petition was filed by one Shiv Kumar challenging the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and Tehsildar in a partition dispute under Section 178 of MPLRC. 

Section 178 of the MPLRC governs the partition of agricultural holdings along co-tenures or Bhumiswamis. It further empowers the Tehsildar to partition jointly held agricultural land but only within the limits of revenue jurisdiction. 

The dispute arose after the respondent Shubhkaran Vaishya filed an application seeking partition of agricultural land, claiming a share in the holding. The petitioner objected, claiming that the respondent was not recorded as Bhumiswami in revenue records and therefore lacked locus to seek partition proceedings before the Tehsildar. 

Initially, the Tehsildar stayed the proceedings for three months under the proviso to Section 178 to enable the institution of a civil suit, but later resumed proceedings and allowed the partition application. The appellate authority and Additional Commissioner reversed that decision. However, the Board of Revenue restored the Tehsildar's order, prompting the present writ petition. 

Before the High Court, the respondent argued that Section 178 uses the expression 'bhumiswami' and not 'recorded Bhumiswami' and therefore, even a person claiming such status could maintain a partition application. It was conteded that the objector should instead be directed to institute a court suit challenging such a claim. 

Rejecting the submissions, the court held that the person not reflected as Bhumiswami in the revenue records cannot invoke section 178 by seeking adjudication of title before the revenue authorities. 

The court clarified that where a claimant asserts co-ownership or joint bhumiswami rights contrary to existing revenue entries, the dispute necessarily involves a declaration of title and must be resolved through civil proceedings. 

The court noted, "It is not the person who is objecting that the person is not Bhumiswami and is not recorded as a Bhumiswami to be directed to file a civil suit for negative declaration that the person who is claiming to be Bhumiswami, is not a Bhumiswami". 

Thus, the court opined, "the Tehsildar has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the application as well as the Board of Revenue in confirming the order passed by the Tehsildar. Therefore, the order dated 15.05.2008 Annexure P/1 and order dated 07.12.2012 Annexure P/4 are hereby quashed. The order passed by the appellate authority is hereby affirmed". 

The court, therefore, disposed of the petition. 

Case Title: Shiv Kumar Vaishya v Shubhkaran Vaishya, WP-504-2013

For Petitioner: Advocate Shiv Kumar Dubey

For Respondent: Advocates Shreyas Pandit and Archit Diwakar

Click here to read/download the Order