RAHUL SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 11/10/2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Dr. Ambedkar Nagar (Mhow), District Indore, whereby his application under Ss. 109, 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner had filed an application before the Tehsildar for being mutated over the disputed land submitting that the same was held by him and his brother Rajeev, who has since expired and now he is the only person entitled to be mutated over the land. His father, Ramakant Shukla and his mother have already expired. It was further submitted that there is no other legal representative of deceased Rajeev, as he had already divorced his wife.

(3.) On the application, a publication was made by the Tehsildar, but no objection was received. A report was also called for from the Halka Patwari. From the same, it did not transpire that there is any other legal representative of deceased Rajeev or any other person who may be having a claim for being mutated over the disputed land.