SHANTILAL Vs. KASHIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 6/2/2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh, whereby the order dtd. 30/3/2016 passed by the Collector, Barwani has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back for fresh adjudication.

(2.) The facts of the case in short are, as under: -

(3.) After notice, respondents No.1 and 2, who are the legal heirs of Kalu, filed the reply by submitting that originally Gulal was the owner of the land in question he had two wives Radhibai and Ladubai. Both of them executed a sale deed dtd. 9/4/1929 in favour of Seth Ramasa. At that time, the son of Ladubai i.e. Kalu was minor, hence minor share in the land could not have been sold by them. Kalu challenged the aforesaid transaction and vide order dtd. 12/8/1937, the sale deed was set aside and the name of Kalu was mutated in the revenue records of 1960-61. Since Kalu was in possession in the year 1960-61, therefore, the provisions under Ss. 170-A and 170-B of the Revenue Code were rightly exercised. Hence, no interference is called for and the petition be dismissed.