ORDER Per. Ashwini Kumar Rai, President. 1. This is a revision, filed under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Code" for brevity), against the order No. 806/A-6/2008-09 dated 30.8.2013, passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, by which the second appeal filed by the applicant against the order No. 36/Appeal/2007-08 dated 15.6.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naugaon in first appeal, has been rejected and the order No. 36/Appeal/2007-08 dated 15.6.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naugaon in first appeal as well as the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 29.9.1971 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, which was certified by Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970, have been affirmed. 2. The dispute in this case concerns Khasra No. 5/49 of Village Garrauli, comprising a total extent of 100 acres of land, owned by Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, the Ruler of Garrauli State. On his demise on 16.9.1964, the applicant, being the only and rightful claimant to the throne of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo of Garrauli State, was recognised as the Ruler of Garrauli State with effect from 17.9.1964, vide Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Order No. F.11/14/64-Poll.III dated 17.4.1965. At that time, the applicant was a minor and as a result, his mother, the non-applicant No. 6 in this case, was looking after him as well as his properties, including the property under dispute here in this case. It was during this period that the non-applicant No. 6 happened to sell a total of 70 acres of land comprised in the above-mentioned Khasra No. 5/49 to three persons, viz., her brother's son Kuwar Padma Pratap Singh (20 acres), her sister Smt. Brijesh Kumari (25 acres) and her other sister Smt. Kusum Kumari (25 acres), vide three sale deeds, all executed on 9.9.1970. Thereafter, as per mutation entries at Sl. Nos. 68, 69 and 70, all dated 29.9.1970, of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, all certified by Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970, mutations were effected in favour of the above-mentioned purchasers, viz., Kuwar Padma Pratap Singh (20 acres), Smt. Brijesh Kumari (25 acres) and Smt. Kusum Kumari (25 acres) respectively. Subsequently, through another mutation entry at Sl. Nos. 68, 69 and 70, all dated 29.9.1970, of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, all certified by Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970, mutations were effected in favour of the above-mentioned purchasers, viz., Kuwar Padma Pratap Singh (20 acres), Smt. Brijesh Kumari (25 acres) and Smt. Kusum Kumari (25 acres) respectively. Subsequently, through another mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, this to certified by Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970, name of the non-applicant was ordered to be mutated against 70 acres of land out of the total of 100 acres of land comprised in the above-mentioned Khasra No. 5/49 and the name of the applicant was ordered to be mutated against the remaining 30 acres of land comprised in the said Khasra No. 5/49, after striking off the name of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, the husband of the non-applicant no. 6 and father of the applicant. 3. The applicant, being aggrieved by the mutation effected as per the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, which was certified by Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970 and being unsuccessful in getting his grievances redressed through channels of appeal, has filed this revision before us. It needs to be pointed out in this context that the applicant, also being aggrieved by the mutation effected as per the mutation entry at Sl. No. 70 dated 29.9.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, which too was certified by Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970 and being unsuccessful in getting his grievances redressed through channels of appeal in that case too, has filed another revision before us, which is being dealt with in Revision No. 3772-III/2013/Chhatarpur. In addition to the above, the applicant, being further aggrieved by the mutations effected as per the mutation entries at Sl. No. 68 and 69, these too dated 29.9.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, which were also certified by Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970 and being unsuccessful in getting his grievances redressed through channels of appeal in those cases too, had filed two revisions in those cases as well, which were dealt with in Revision No. 3769-III/2013/Chhatarpur and Revision No. 3769-III/2013/Chhatarpur respectively. However, subsequently, as the applicant had chosen not to press those revisions, the same were closed. 4. We have heard the detailed arguments of the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties. We have also perused the records. 5. According to the Learned Counsel for the applicant, the mutation effected as per the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, which was certified by Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970, whereby name of the non-applicant was ordered to be mutated against 70 acres of land out of the total of 100 acres of land comprised in the above-mentioned Khasra No. 5/49 and the name of the applicant was ordered to be mutated against the remaaining 30 acres of land comprised in the said Khasra No. 5/49, after striking off the name of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, was clearly void ab initio as the same was not merely an order of mutation to bring on record the names of legal heirs of the Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, in whose name the land comprised in Khasra No. 5/49 of Village - Garrauli, having a total extent of 100 acres, stood recorded till that point of time but also an order partitioning the said land between the applicant and the non-applicant, giving the non-applicant a larger share of 70 acres of land and the applicant a mere 30 acres of land, without any justification whatsoever, and that too, without following any procedure as laid down in the relevant provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder. Learned Counsel for the applicant also stated that as the said mutation-cum-partition, which was prejudicial to the interests of the applicant, a minor at that point of time, was ordered without notice to the applicant and without complying with the provisions of order 32 rule 3 of Civil Procedue Code, 1908, it was void and liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Learned Counsel for the applicant further stated that even on merits, the said mutation-cum-partition is liable to be set aside, being partently erroneous, for the following two reasons, Firstly, because the applicant, having already heen recognised as the only rightful claimant to the throne of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo of Garrauli State, and consequently as the rule of Garrauli State with effect from 17.9.1964, vide Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs order No. F.11/14/64-Poll III dated 17.4.1965, was the sole inheritor of all the properties of the Late shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, including the land comprised in Khasra No. 5/49, on the basis of ''Rule of primogeniture'', which was applicable in his case, as the applicability of the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 stood specifically excluded by virtue of section 5 (ii) thereof, which clearly mentions that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 shall not apply to any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencerment of the said Act. As such, the non-applicant did not inherit any portion of the property including those comprised in Khasra No. 5/49, left behind by the Lte Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Dewo, against which she could have laid a claim for partition or which Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon could have legally apportioned to her as per the provisions of partition under the Code. Clearly, Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon had erred by apportioning 70 acres of land out of the total of 100 acres of land comprised in the above-mentioned Khasra No. 5/49 to the non-applicant, leaving only the remaining 30 acres of land comprised in the said Khasra No. 5/49 to the applicant. Clearly, Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon had erred by apportioning 70 acres of land out of the total of 100 acres of land comprised in the above-mentioned Khasra No. 5/49 to the non-applicant, leaving only the remaining 30 acres of land comprised in the said Khasra No. 5/49 to the applicant. Secondly, because even if it is assumed for argurment sake, the same not being conceded, that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were to apply in this case too, still the said mutation-cum-partition ordered was blatantly erroneous as it had failed to given any share in the family property contained in said Khasra No. 5/49 to the applicant's sister (i.e. the daughter of the non-applicant) Sneha Kumari, despite the fact that she was also entitled, alongwith the applicant and the non-applicant, to an equal share under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, being one of the three legal heirs of Late shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo. Thus, rather than apportioning the said land comprised in Khasra No. 5/49 of Village - Garrauli, having a total extent of 100 acres equally among the applicant, the non-applicationand the sister of the applicant (i.e. the daughter of the non-applicant) Sneha Kumari, the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon had clearly erred by apportioning 70 acres of land out of the total of 100 acres of land comprised in the above-mentioned Khasra No. 5/49 to the non-applicant and 30 acres of land comprised in the said Khasra No. 5/49 to the applicant, thereby leaving nothing for the sister of the applicant (i.e. the daughter of the non-applicant) Sneha Kumari. Accourding to the Leaned Counsel for the applicant, seen whichever way, the mutation-cum-partition as per the mutation entry at Sl. Accourding to the Leaned Counsel for the applicant, seen whichever way, the mutation-cum-partition as per the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of village - Garrauli, which was certified by by Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970, whereby name of the non-applicant was ordered to be mutated against 70 acres of land out of the total of 100 acres of land comprised in the above-mentioned Khasra No. 5/49 and the name of the applicant was ordered to be mutated against the remaining 30 acres of land comprised in the said Khasra No. 5/49, after striking off the name of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, was clearly void ab initio, which can be challenged at any time in terms of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors. ( AIR 1954 SC 340 ). Learned Counsel for the applicant therefore prayed for setting aside the mutation-cum-partition as per the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 deted 1.10.1970 of the mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village-Garrauli, which was certified by Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970, whereby name of the non-applicant was ordered to be mutated against 70 acres of land out of the total of 100 acres of land comprised in the above-mentioned Khasra No. 5/49 and the name of the applicant was ordered to be mutated against the remaining 30 acres of land comprised in the said Khasra No. 5/49, after striking off the name of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo. He also pryed for setting aside the order No/. 806/A-2008-09 dated 30.8.2013, passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, in second appeal and the order No. 36/Appeal/2007-08 dated 15.6.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naugaon in first appeal, by which the illegal mutation-cum-partition as per mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village-Garrauli, which was certified by Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970, has been affirmed. 6. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to refer to section 110 of the Code, dealing with Mutation of acquisition of right in Field Book and other relevant land records, as it stood at the time of commencement of proceedings in this case (i.e. on 1-10-1970), which is as under: "110. 6. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to refer to section 110 of the Code, dealing with Mutation of acquisition of right in Field Book and other relevant land records, as it stood at the time of commencement of proceedings in this case (i.e. on 1-10-1970), which is as under: "110. Mutation of acquisition of right in Field Book and other relevant land records.- (1) The Patwari shall enter into a register prescribed for the purpose every acquisition of right reported to him under section 109 or which comes to his notice from intimation from Gram Panchayat or any other source. (2) The Patwari shall intimate all the reports regarding acquisition of right received by him under sub-section (1) to the Tahsildar within thirty days of the receipt thereof by him. (3) On receipt of the intimation from patwari under sub-section (2), the Tahsildar shall have it published in the village in the prescribed manner and shall also give written intimation thereof to all persons appearing to him to be interested in the mutation and also to such other persons and authorities as may be prescribed. (4) The Tahsildar shall after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the persons interested and after making such further enquiry, as he may deem necessary, make necessary entry in the Field Book and other relevant lands records." 7. It is also apposite to refer to the relevant portions of the rules regarding Record of Rights, dealing with Mutations in the Khasra (hereinafter referred to as "Mutation Rules" for brevity), which were framed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the above-mentioned section 110 of the Code, as they stood at the time of commencement of proceedings in this case (i.e. on 1-10-1970), which is as under : "IV-Mutations in the Khasra 24. The Patwari shall maintain a register in Form E in which he shall enter village-wise every change in ownership of land due to transfer by registered deeds, inheritance, survivorship, bequest or lease reported to him under section 109 or which come to his notice from intimations received from Gram Panchayat or from any other source. 25. A copy of the entries made in the register during a month shall be by the Patwari at the end-of-each-month-to the Tahsildar. 25. A copy of the entries made in the register during a month shall be by the Patwari at the end-of-each-month-to the Tahsildar. If no entry is made in any month in the register, blank report shall be sent by the Patwari to the Tahsildar. 26. Certification of the entries in the mutation register shall be made at the Headquarters of the Gram Panchayat or at any other convenient centre in the Gram Panchayat area fixed for this purpose by the Tahsildar. 27. On receipt of the intimations from the Patwaris or from the Registering Officers under section 112, the Tahsildar shall have the intimations duly published by beat of drum in the village to which they relate and shall get a copy of the intimation posted at the chaupal, sudi or any other place of public resort in the village and shall also send a copy thereof to the Gram Panchayat of the village. He shall also give written intimation of the same to all persons appearing to him to be interested in the mutation. 28. On a date and place to be specified in the intimation, the Tahsildar shall hear the parties concerned and certify the mutation entry, provided that, where a party remains absent after having been duly served with a notice, the entry will be certified ex parte. 29. The Tahsildar shall read out the entry in the presence of the parties interested, and where the correctness of the entry is admitted, shall record such admission in the mutation register, and add an endorsement under his signature that the entry has been duly certified and also indicate the modified entry that will be made in the Khasra as a result of the certification. 30. All original documents produced before the Tahsildar shall be endorsed by him and returned to the parties as soon as orders have been passed. 31. The changes shall first be entered in the register of mutations village-wise. Where there are no disputes, mutations shall be certified in the register itself by the Tahsildar and suitable entries made in the Rasid Bahis. If there are disputes, separate cases shall be started for each person after taking extract from the register for starting cases separately. 31. The changes shall first be entered in the register of mutations village-wise. Where there are no disputes, mutations shall be certified in the register itself by the Tahsildar and suitable entries made in the Rasid Bahis. If there are disputes, separate cases shall be started for each person after taking extract from the register for starting cases separately. The Tahsildar shall give a certificate in the mutation register that entries in the Rasid Bahi have been made according to mutations sanctioned in undisputed cases and separate cases have been started for disputed entries. 32. Disputes shall be decided summarily by the Tahsildar on the basis of title and not possession. Any transfer by a person whose name is not recorded in the Khasra shall not be admitted in mutation by the Tahsildar. The order shall contain the names of the parties and witnesses and a brief summary of the evidence produced by either side together with the Tahsildar findings thereon. 33. When the disputed cases are decided, the entries in the Khasra and the Rasid Bahi shall be got corrected by the Tahsildar The Tahsildar shall give a certificate in the mutation register that entries in the Rasid Bahi and Khasra have been mode according to the decisions in the disputed cases. 8. A conjoint reading of section 110(2) of the Code along with rule 27 of the Mutation Rules makes it clear that on receipt of the intimation from the Patwari regarding any change in ownership of land due to transfer by registered deeds, inheritance, survivorship, bequest or lease, it is incumbent upon the Tahsildar to not only have the said intimation duly published by beat of drum in the village to which it relates, besides having got a copy of the said intimation posted at the chaupal, gudi or any other place of public resort in the village and also having got sent copy thereof to the Gram Panchayat of the village, but also to give written intimation of the same to all the persons appearing to him to be interested in the mutation. In other words, mere publication of the intimation in the prescribed manner does not absolve the Tahsildar of the mandatory duty cast upon him by the provisions of section 110(2) of the Code read with Rule 27 of the Mutation rules. In other words, mere publication of the intimation in the prescribed manner does not absolve the Tahsildar of the mandatory duty cast upon him by the provisions of section 110(2) of the Code read with Rule 27 of the Mutation rules. Rather, the Tahsildar, for successful discharge of the abovementioned mandatory duty, has to ensure that written intimation of the same is also given to all the persons appearing to him to be interested in the mutation. 9. A perusal of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village - Garrauli, more particularly of the entry at Sl. No. 71 thereof, reveals that this entry has been made by the Patwari for reporting acquisition of right by the legal heirs of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo by inheritance in the land owned by Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo in Village - Garauli. However it is not clear from the entry as to whether the said acquisition of right had been reported to him under section 109 of the Code or the same had come to his notice from intimation received from Gram Panchayat or from any other source. Perusal of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, more particularly of the entry at Sl. No. 71 thereof, further reveals that even though a genealogical tree ¼'ktjk½ is given therein, the said genealogical tree ¼'ktjk½ which mentions the applicant as the son of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, while the non-applicant is shown as the wife of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo is factually wrong as it had left out the name of Sneha Kumari, who, being the daughter of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo (i.e. sister of the applicant and daughter of the non-applicant), also deserved to be shown in the genealogical tree ¼'ktjk½ of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo. Being the off-springs and spouse respectively of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, the applicant, Sneha Kumari and the non-applicant were definitely the persons interested in the mutation of the land belonging to Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo and as such, were entitled to written intimation under the provisions of section 110(2) of the Code read with rule 27 of the Mutation Rules. However, the perusal of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, more particularly of the entry at Sl. No. 71 thereof, reveals no mention whatsoever about any intimation to the applicant or Sneha Kumari or for that matter, even to the non-applicant. In fact, in the said entry at Sl. No. 71 of the the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village - Garrauli, there is just a mention to the effect that fu;ekuqlkj b'rgkj tkjh fd;k x;k e©d¢ ij Òh d¨Ã foj¨èk ugha vk;k which is not sufficient to even conclude that the publication of the intimation did indeed take place in the manner prescribed under rule 27 of the Mutation Rules, viz., by beat of drum in the Village Garrauli to which it related, by getting a copy of the said intimation posted at the chaupal, gudi or any other place of public resort in the Village Garrauli and also by sending a copy thereof to the Gram Panchayat of Garrauli. What however can easily be concluded from the above is that no written intimation whatsoever was issued to any of the persons interested in the mutation. Interestingly, even though it is clear that no intimation whatsoever was issued to any of the persons interested, still the non-applicant is somehow seen to have made the following noting in her own handwriting and signature under the entry at Sl. No. 71 of the the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village - Garrauli: ^^esjs uke 5@49 esa ls 70-00 esjs uke bUækt dj fn;k tk;s ckdh 'ks"k uejku dk jdck esjs iq= jktk lkgc josUæ flag twnso d¢ uke dj fn;s tk, eq>s d¨Ã vkifÙk ugha gSA^^ 10. It is worthwhile to note in this connection that this noting by the non-applicant was made just below the erroneous genealogical tree ¼'ktjk½ wherein the name of Sneha Kumari, the daughter of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo as well as the non-applicant, was not shown. It is therefore not possible that the non-applicant would not have noted this glaring omission. Still, she failed to point out this omission. It is therefore not possible that the non-applicant would not have noted this glaring omission. Still, she failed to point out this omission. Not only that, even in her noting, not only by not mentioning anything about Sneha Kumari but also by proposing that 70 acres of land comprised in Khasra No. 5/49 be entered in her name and the rest in the name of the applicant, thereby leaving nothing for Sneha Kumari, she blatantly indulged in misrepresentation before the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon and therefore played a fraud on him. 11. It is also worthwhile to note in this connection that what was being sought by the non-applicant through her noting was beyond the scope of mutation proceedings being conducted on a Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ under section 110 of the Code because under the provisions of section 110 of the Code, the most that could have been done was to enter the names of the legal heirs of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo against the land, that stood recorded in the name of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo on that date, by striking off the name of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo. Thereafter, if the legal heirs, whose names got so recorded, wanted partition of their share in the said land amongst themselves, they had to take recourse to the provisions contained in section 178 of the Code, dealing with Partition of holding, by filing separate application for the purpose. It was not permissible for the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon to order partition of the land comprised in Khasra No. 5/49 in a mutation proceeding being conducted on a Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ under section 110 of the Code. However, notwithstanding the above legal position, the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon is seen to have gone ahead and certified the entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli on 15.11.1970, exactly on the lines sought by the non-applicant, by recording as follows: ^^Òwfe Lokeh Q©r okfj'k dqŒ johUæ flag nso rFkk jkuh g"kZ dqekjh eqrkfcd ltjk gSŒ 5@49 esa ls tqt 70-00 dh rjehe jkuh g"kZ dqekjh d¢ rFkk ckdh uEcjku dqŒ johUæ flag nso d¢ uke rjehe fd;k tkrk gSA jktk jÄqjkt flag nso dk uke fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 12. It is clear from the above that it was by virtue of the above order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, that the name of the non-applicant got mutated against 70 acres of land out of the total of 100 acres of land comprised in the above-mentioned Khasra No. 5/49 and the name of the applicant got mutated against the remaining 30 acres of land comprised in the said Khasra No. 5/49, after striking off the name of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Deo. It is also clear from the above that this order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon was not merely an order of mutation to bring on record the names of legal heirs of the Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, in whose name the land comprised in Khasra No. 5/49 of Village Garrauli, having a total extent of 100 acres, stood recorded till that point of time but also an order partitioning the said land between the applicant and the non-applicant, giving the non-applicant a larger share of 70 acres of land and the applicant a mere 30 acres of land, without any justification whatsoever, and that too, without following any procedure as laid down in the relevant provisions of the Code and the Rules made thereunder. 13. Once it is clear that the order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. 13. Once it is clear that the order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village - Garrauli, whereby the name of the non-applicant got mutated against 70 acres of land out of the total of 100 acres of land comprised in the above-mentioned Khasra No. 5/49 and the name of the applicant got mutated against the remaining 30 acres of land comprised in the said Khasra No. 5/49, after striking off the name of Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, was not merely an order of mutation to bring on record the names of legal heirs of the Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, in whose name the land comprised in Khasra No. 5/49 of Village Garrauli, having a total extent of 100 acres, stood recorded till that point of time but also an order partitioning the said land between the applicant and the non-applicant, giving the non-applicant a larger share of 70 acres of land and the applicant a mere 30 acres of land, without any justification whatsoever, and that too, without following any procedure as laid down in the relevant provisions of the Code and the Rules made thereunder, we now need to examine the legality of it. In this connection, it is worthwhile to note that the legality of an order of partition passed on the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ has been considered in a series of decisions of Board of Revenue. In this connection, it is worthwhile to note that the legality of an order of partition passed on the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ has been considered in a series of decisions of Board of Revenue. We would however like to refer, with profit, to the decision of the Board in Munna versus Tulsi and others (1994 RN 302), wherein Shri Amar Singh, the then Member of Board of Revenue, held as follows: ^^-------iVokjh us ukekarj.k iath ij 24-9-1990 dks igyh ckj bUækt fy[kkA 11-10-1990 dks rglhy U;k;ky; us ukekarj.k iath ij gh caVokjs dk vkns'k çlkfjr fd;kA vkosnd us ukekarj.k iath ij caVokjs ds laca/k esa tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] mldks pqukSrh eq[;r% bl vk/kkj ij nh gS fd og lafgrk dh /kkjk 178 ds varxZr tks fu;e cuk;s x, gSa rFkk muesa tks çko/kku gSa] mudk fcuk ikyu fd, gq, ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ijarq çFke vihyh; U;k;ky; us mldh vihy dks vof/k ckg~; ekuk rFkk f}rh; vihyh; U;k;ky; us Hkh çFke vihyh; U;k;ky; ds bl vkns'k dks dk;e j[kk gS] vr,o% ;g fuxjkuh çLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- vkosnd ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk igyk rdZ ;g Fkk fd fcuk vkosnu i= ds rglhy U;k;ky; caVokjs dh dk;Zokgh çkjaHk ugha dj ldrk gSA mUgksaus ;g cryk;k fd bl çdj.k esa dksbZ Hkh vkosnu i= rglhy U;k;ky; esa caVokjs ds fy, çLrqr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] vr,o% caVokjs ds laca/k esa ikfjr fd, x, vkns'k vf/kdkfjrk jfgr gSaA bl laca/k esa mUgksaus 1985 jk fu i`"B 30 jrupan ,oa vU; fo:) Hkkxpan ,oa vU; dk –"Vkar çLrqr fd;kA 3- vkosnd ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd ds bl rdZ esa cy gSA lafgrk dh /kkjk 178¼1½ esa ;g çko/kku gS fd dksbZ Hkh lg HkwfeLokeh caVokjs ds fy, rglhynkj dks vIykbZ djsxkA lafgrk dh /kkjk 178 ds varxZr caVokjs ds laca/k esa fu;e Hkh cuk, x, gSa rFkk fu;e 1 esa ;g çko/kku gS fd lg HkwfeLokeh ds }kjk vkosnu i= fn;k tk,xkA 1985 jk fu i`"B 30 esa rRdkyhu fo}ku v/;{k jktLo eaMy us muds vkns'k ds iSjkxzkQ 4 esa ;g fy[kk gS fd caVokjs dh dk;Zokgh rglhy U;k;ky; esa vkosnu i= çkIr gksus ds mijkar gh fu;ekuqlkj çkjaHk dh tk,xhA vr,o% rglhy U;k;ky; ds }kjk bl çdj.k esa tks caVokjs dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] og vfèkdkfjrk jfgr gSA dsoy blh vk/kkj ij ;g vkns'k fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA [ksn gS fd çFke ,oa f}rh; vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa us fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds }kjk lafgrk dh /kkjk 178 ds varxZr vf/kdkfjrk ds ç;ksx esa dh xbZ bl xaHkhj =qfV dh vksj dksbZ Hkh /;ku ugha fn;k gSA 4- vkosnd ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us nwljk rdZ ;g j[kk fd rglhy ds }kjk caVokjs dk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds iwoZ bl /kkjk ds varxZr tks fu;e cuk, x, gSaA mudk Hkh ikyu ugha fd;k gSA ukekarj.k iath ij caVokjs dk vkns'k ikfjr djus esa oS/kkfud Hkwy dh gSA muds bl rdZ esa Hkh eSa cy ikrk gwaA vkosnu i= gksus ds mijkar rglhy U;k;ky; dks QkeZ ^^v** esa lg HkwfeLokfe;ksa dks uksfVl tkjh djuk pkfg,] ftlesa fd muds le{k mudks mifLFkr gksus dh frfFk fu/kkZfjr dh tkuh pkfg, rFkk ,slh frfFk uksfVl tkjh gksus ds fnukad ls 30 fnu ls de ugha gksuk pkfg, rFkk 60 fnu ls vf/kd ugha gksuk pkfg,A 5- bl çdj.k esa 24-9-1990 dks iVokjh us ukekarj.k iath ij igyh ckj fy[kk gS rFkk 11-10-90 dks rglhy U;k;ky; us caVokjs dk vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k gSA ukekarj.k iath esa rglhy U;k;ky; ds }kjk uksfVl tkjh djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gS] ,slk ugha fy[kk gqvk gSA blds vykok 24-9-1990 dks iVokjh ds }kjk dk;Zokgh çkjaHk gksrh gS rFkk 11-10-1990 dks rglhynkj ds }kjk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS] blls ;g Li"V gS fd vxj uksfVl nsuk eku Hkh fy;k tk, rks Hkh uksfVl esa tks le; lhek nh xbZ gS- og fuèkkZfjr le; lhek ls cgqr de gSA blds vykok QnZ caVokjk cukus dk vkns'k nsus ds laca/k esa Hkh dksbZ mYys[k ukekarj.k iath ds fu;e ds vuqlkj ugha fd;k x;k gS ,oa fu;e 6 ds vuqlkj bl ij dksbZ vkifÙk çkIr gqbZ gks ,oa mldk mUgksaus D;k fujkdj.k fd;k gS- bldk Hkh dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr,o% vkosnd ds vfHkHkk"kd ds rdZ esa ;g cy gS fd rglhy U;k;ky; ds }kjk fuèkkZfjr çfØ;k dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk ukekarj.k iath esa caVokjs dk vkns'k ns dj ds mUgksaus xaHkhj oS/kkfud =qfV dh gSA---^^ 14. When we compare the facts of the case mentioned in the decision of the Board in Munna versus Tulsi and others (supra), as extracted above, to the case at hand, we find that they are by and large identical inasmuch as the entire action in the case at hand too had been taken without any application for partition from any party, no notice had been issued to any party, no partition list ¼QnZ caVokjk½ had been got prepared, the entry at Sl. No. 71 in the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli had been made on 1.10.1970 and the order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon had been passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli and all this had been done without following any procedure as laid down in the relevant provisions of the Code and the rules made thereunder. Such being the position, we have no manner of doubt in holding, as has been held in the case of Munna versus Tulsi and others (supra), that this mutation-cum-partition order passed, without following any procedure as laid down in the relevant provisions of the Code and the Rules made thereunder, by the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, is illegal and the same has been passed without jurisdiction. 15. We have also considered the other contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant, whereby he has requested for setting aside the mutation-cum-partition order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, which was prejudicial to the interests of the applicant, a minor at that point of time, as the same, having been ordered without notice to the applicant and without complying with the provisions of Order 32 rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was void and liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It is no doubt true that the mutation-cum-partition order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. It is no doubt true that the mutation-cum-partition order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli was issued without any notice to the applicant, who was a minor at that point of time. It is also true that the provisions of Order 32 rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were also not followed in the case of the applicant, as a result of which the interests of the applicant had been prejudiced. A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Ram Chandra Arya versus Man Singh and another ( AIR 1968 SC 954 ), while considering the effect of a decree passed against a minor without him being represented by a duly appointed guardian, held as follows: "It is now a well settled principle that if a decree is passed against a minor without appointment of a guardian, the decree is a nullity and is void and not merely voidable." Seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Ram Chandra Arya v. Man Singh and another (supra), as extracted above, we have no hesitation in holding that the mutation-cum-partition order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, which was prejudicial to the interests of the applicant, a minor at that point of time, having been ordered without notice to the applicant and without complying with the provisions of Order 32 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is void and liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 16. What emerges from the discussions in the preceding paragraphs is that the mutation-cum-partition order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, was not only illegal and without jurisdiction but also void. We accordingly hold the mutation-cum-partition order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli as illegal, without jurisdiction and void. 17. We accordingly hold the mutation-cum-partition order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli as illegal, without jurisdiction and void. 17. We also note in this context that the first Appellate Authority, viz., Sub-Divisional Officer, Naugaon, vide his order No. 36/Appeal/2007-08 dated 15.6.2009 and the second Appellate Authority, viz., Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, vide his order No. 806/A-6/2008-09 have refrained from interfering with this mutation-cum-partition order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village - Garrauli, which was not only illegal and without jurisdiction but also void, merely on account of delay. We find the said action of the two Appellate Authorities below completely erroneous in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors. (supra), which is as follows: "It is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties." Seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors. (supra), as extracted above, we have no manner of doubt in holding that the two Appellate Authorities below were clearly in error, when they refrained from interfering with the mutation-cum-partition order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, which was not only illegal and without jurisdiction but also void, merely on account of delay. 18. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, which was not only illegal and without jurisdiction but also void, merely on account of delay. 18. In the facts and circumstances of the case as stated in the preceding paragraphs, we hereby allow this revision, set aside the mutation-cum-partition order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village - Garrauli, as the same is not only illegal and without jurisdiction but also void, as well as the order No. 36/Appeal/2007-08 dated 15.6.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naugaon in first appeal and the order No. 806/A-6/2008-09 dated 30.8.2013, passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, in second appeal, by which the said mutation-cum-partition order of the Naib Tahsildar, Naugaon passed on 15.11.1970 while certifying the mutation entry at Sl. No. 71 dated 1.10.1970 of the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ of Village Garrauli, has been affirmed and remand the case back to Tahsildar, Naugaon for fresh disposal, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code and the Rules made thereunder and in the light of the observations made by us in the preceding paragraphs, after notice to all the interested parties (including notice to Sneha Kumari, who despite prima facie having an interest in the property under dispute in this case, is yet to be made a party). In this context, we would like to draw attention of the Tahsildar, Naugaon to rule 31 of the Mutation Rules, as per which mutations are to be certified in the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ by the Tahsildar only in cases where there are no disputes and in cases, like the one at hand, where there are disputes, separate cases have to be started for each person after after taking extract from the Mutation Register ¼ukekarj.k iath½ for starting cases separately and expect him to act accordingly. 19. 19. Before parting, we would also like to make it clear in this context that we have consciously refrained from recording our view on the last contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant regarding the applicant being the sole inheritor of all the properties of the Late Shri Dewan Bahadur Raja Raghuraj Singh Deo, including the land comprised in Khasra No. 5/49, on the basis of "Rule of primogeniture", not only because one of the parties necessary for proper adjudication of the above contention, viz., Sneha Kumari, was not before us but also because we feel, now that we have already decided to remand the case back to Tahsildar, Naugaon for fresh disposal, that the same is also no longer required, as the applicant is in any case going to get ample opportunity to raise the above contention before Tahsildar, Naugaon in the presence of all the interested parties (including Sneha Kumari) and get an adjudication thereon from him.