{"id":111499,"date":"2010-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-04-15T10:36:01","modified_gmt":"2014-04-15T05:06:01","slug":"kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                 -( 1 )-                  W.P.No. 2019\/2002\n\n     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR\n                   Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2002\n\n\n                    Kailash Kumar Khandelwal\n                                 Versus\n                Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior\n                           and others\n\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri Ravish Agrawal, senior counsel with Shri Abhishek\nSingh, for petitioner.\n\nShri Ravendra Shukla, counsel for respondents No. 5 &amp; 7.\n\nShri Rajesh Maindiretta, counsel for respondents No. 8 to 35.\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPRESENT :             Hon'ble Shri R.S. Jha, J.\n\n                              ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>                             (18-11-2010)<\/p>\n<p>       The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved<br \/>\nby the order dated 12-2-2002 passed by the Board of<br \/>\nRevenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior in Revision No.<br \/>\n1691-Ek\/2001, setting aside the order dated 29-8-2001,<br \/>\npassed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, in<br \/>\nAppeal No. 236\/Rev\/2000-2001, arising out of orders<br \/>\ndated 4-4-2001 and 25-4-2001 passed by the Collector.<br \/>\nSatna, in Case No. 33-A-19\/Suo Motu Revision\/94-96,.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      The brief facts leading to the filing of the present<br \/>\npetition are that one Smt. Sona Bai, widow of Shri Sarju<br \/>\nSharan was granted a permanent lease of a total area of<br \/>\n41.82 acres comprising of Aaraji Nos. 214, 215, 256, 257,<br \/>\n258, 288, 290 and 292 by a deed, dated 19-4-1949. The\n<\/p>\n<p>                            -(2)-             W.P.No. 2019\/2002<\/p>\n<p>said Smt. Sona Bai executed a lease deed in favour of<br \/>\none Arjun Das, father of the petitioner, in respect of<br \/>\nKhasra No. 292, area 5.40 acres ( This Khasra Number<br \/>\nwas subsequently changed to 292\/1 ). Subsequently,<br \/>\nsome time in the year 1982 after death of Smt. Sona Bai<br \/>\nher three daughters executed about 23 sale deeds in<br \/>\nrespect of the aforementioned 5.40 acres in the name of<br \/>\nvarious persons whose names were ultimately recorded<br \/>\nby the Superintendent, Land Records in the year 1986 in<br \/>\nthe revenue records. A report in respect of the aforesaid<br \/>\nrecording of names was made to the Collector, Satna<br \/>\nwho, therefore, took up suo motu proceedings under the<br \/>\nprovisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the &#8216;Code&#8217;) and by interim order dated<br \/>\n30-5-1995 ordered that the names recorded by the<br \/>\nPatwari be deleted and the name of the State be recorded<br \/>\nas the owner of the aforesaid land and that all further<br \/>\ntransactions in respect of the land in question be kept in<br \/>\nabeyance.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    The aforesaid order passed by the Collector, Satna,<br \/>\nwas assailed by Smt. Kundan Devi and others by filing a<br \/>\nwrit petition before this Court which was registered as<br \/>\nW.P.No. 2253\/1995 and this Court, by order dated<br \/>\n23-10-1997 quashed the aforesaid order on the short<br \/>\nground that before passing any order, the Collector had<br \/>\nfailed to give any show cause notice or opportunity of<br \/>\nhearing to the affected persons and the matter was<br \/>\nremanded back to the Collector with a direction to decide<br \/>\nthe same after giving due and effective opportunity to the<br \/>\npetitioners to contest the case. It was further directed by\n<\/p>\n<p>                            -( 3 )-          W.P.No. 2019\/2002<\/p>\n<p>this Court that during the pendency of the proceedings<br \/>\nbefore the Collector status quo in respect of the revenue<br \/>\nrecord and possession of the land shall be maintained.<br \/>\nPursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the<br \/>\nCollector, Satna, on 4-6-1998 issued notices to the<br \/>\nconcerned persons, including the petitioner pursuant to<br \/>\nwhich the petitioner had filed his objections to the effect<br \/>\nthat the petitioner being the permanent lease holder of the<br \/>\nland in question, no sale deeds in favour of the<br \/>\npurchasers could have been executed by the original<br \/>\nPattedar, Smt. Sona Bai.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   After hearing all the parties the Collector, Satna by<br \/>\norder dated 4-4-2001 held that consequent upon the<br \/>\ndeath of Smt. Sona Bai her daughters have acquired the<br \/>\nstatus as Bhumiswamis except in respect of Khasra No.<br \/>\n257 and 215 which were tanks and therefore vested in the<br \/>\nState under the provisions of Section 251 of the Code.<br \/>\nThe Collector further ordered that the petitioner being the<br \/>\npermanent leasee of Khasra No. 292\/1, area 5.40 acres,<br \/>\nno alienation in respect of that land or part thereof could<br \/>\nbe made by Smt. Sona Bai or by her successors in favour<br \/>\nof any other person and, therefore, mutation made by the<br \/>\nSuperintendent, Land Records was quashed and the<br \/>\nsituation prevailing prior to the sale deed i.e. as on<br \/>\n20-8-1982 was restored. Subsequently, the Collector by<br \/>\norder dated 25-4-2001 corrected the clerical error in his<br \/>\nprevious order dated 4-4-2001 and instead of Khasra No.<br \/>\n292\/2, area 5.40 acres mentioned Khasra No. 292\/1, area<br \/>\n5.40 acres.\n<\/p>\n<p>                            -(4)-                W.P.No. 2019\/2002<\/p>\n<p>5.    The order of the Collector was affirmed in appeal by<br \/>\nthe Commissioner, Rewa by order dated 28-9-2001. The<br \/>\naforesaid   orders    passed       by   the    Collector    and<br \/>\nCommissioner were assailed by the respondent Abhishek<br \/>\nJain and 25 others by filing a Revision Case No. 1691-<br \/>\nEk\/2001 which has been allowed                by the Board of<br \/>\nRevenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior by the impugned<br \/>\norder 12-2-2002 and while quashing the orders passed by<br \/>\nthe Collector, Satna dated 4-4-2001 and 25-4-2001 and<br \/>\nthe order passed by the Commissioner, Rewa, dated<br \/>\n29-8-2001, the orders of mutation dated 21-4-2006 and<br \/>\nthe consequent order passed by the Patwari, dated<br \/>\n26-4-1986 have been restored. Additionally, it has been<br \/>\nordered that the parties shall maintain status quo in<br \/>\nrespect of 3.40 acres of land of Khasra No. 292\/1 which is<br \/>\nin possession of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Board<br \/>\nof Revenue, M.P., Gwalior the petitioner has filed this<br \/>\npetition alleging that the Board of Revenue has erred in<br \/>\nexercising the powers vested in it and has travelled<br \/>\nbeyond its powers inasmuch as the Board of Revenue<br \/>\nafter clearly recording a finding that the Revenue Courts<br \/>\nhad no power to initiate suo motu proceedings after a<br \/>\nlong time and as there was no impugned order against<br \/>\nwhich suo motu proceedings were taken up                by the<br \/>\nauthorities, the entire proceedings should have been<br \/>\nquashed by it instead of upholding the orders passed by<br \/>\nthe Superintendent, Land Records, directing maintenance<br \/>\nof status quo in respect of Khasra No. 292\/1, area 3.40<br \/>\nacres.\n<\/p>\n<p>                            -( 5 )-            W.P.No. 2019\/2002<\/p>\n<p>7.    The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has<br \/>\nfurther submitted that the Board of Revenue has travelled<br \/>\nbeyond its jurisdiction by entering into the question of title<br \/>\nor the question of succession and acquisition of the status<br \/>\nof Bhumi Swami of the legal representatives who were<br \/>\nthe daughters of Smt. Sona Bai. The petitioner further<br \/>\ncontended that the Board of Revenue on recording a<br \/>\nfinding that the petitioner had been granted permanent<br \/>\nlease in respect of 5.40 acres of Khasra No. 292\/1 could<br \/>\nnot have directed maintenance of status quo in respect of<br \/>\n3.40 acres of land which was part of the aforesaid lease,<br \/>\nspecifically as the validity or otherwise of the lease<br \/>\ngranted in favour of the petitioner or the fact as to whether<br \/>\nthe petitioner had lost any rights under the lease on<br \/>\naccount of non-payment of rent etc. were not the subject-<br \/>\nmatter in the proceedings before any of the authorities.<br \/>\nThe petitioner has also stated that the Board of Revenue<br \/>\nin fact should have determined the petitioner&#8217;s status<br \/>\nkeeping in mind the provisions of Rewa Land Revenue<br \/>\nand Tenancy Code, 1935 repealed by the M.P.Land<br \/>\nRevenue and Rewa Tenancy Act, 1959 which was further<br \/>\nrepealed by M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959. In view of<br \/>\nthe aforesaid, it is stated that the impugned order passed<br \/>\nby the Board of Revenue be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    The respondents, per contra, submit that the Board<br \/>\nof Revenue has rightly examined the issue from all the<br \/>\nfacts and facets and set aside the orders passed by the<br \/>\nCollector, Commissioner and rightly directed maintenance<br \/>\nof status quo in respect of 3.40 acres of land which has<br \/>\nbeen leased out to the petitioner on permanent basis\n<\/p>\n<p>                             -(6)-            W.P.No. 2019\/2002<\/p>\n<p>taking into account the fact that the petitioner has not<br \/>\ndeposited the lease rent periodically.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.    I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at<br \/>\nlength and gone through the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   From a perusal of the order passed by the Collector,<br \/>\ndated 4-4-2001, specifically, paragraph 7 thereof it is<br \/>\nclear that the Collector has recorded a finding to the effect<br \/>\nthat it is not clear as to how and in what manner the<br \/>\nmatter was initiated and taken up for suo motu revision<br \/>\nand that there is no order on record against which suo<br \/>\nmotu proceedings could be taken up. There is also a<br \/>\nfinding to the effect that even in the show cause notice<br \/>\nissued to the parties there is no mention of any order<br \/>\nagainst which suo motu proceedings have been taken up<br \/>\nwhich is a necessary requirement under the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 50 of the Code. In spite of the aforesaid aspect,<br \/>\nthe Collector has gone on to decide the revision<br \/>\nproceedings. The aforesaid aspect has again been<br \/>\nreiterated and reaffirmed by the Board of Revenue in<br \/>\nparagraph 16 of the impugned order dated 12-2-2002. It<br \/>\nis evident from a perusal of paragraph 17 of the impugned<br \/>\norder that the Board of Revenue has recorded a finding to<br \/>\nthe effect that suo motu proceedings in respect of the<br \/>\nmatter were highly belated and no reason or valid basis<br \/>\nwas available on record to initiate the same. It is also<br \/>\nclear that the Board of Revenue in spite of recording the<br \/>\naforesaid findings has gone on to quash the order dated<br \/>\n4-4-2001 and 25-4-2001 passed by the Collector, Satna<br \/>\nand   the   order   dated    29-8-2001    passed    by    the<br \/>\nCommissioner, Rewa and to restore the order passed by\n<\/p>\n<p>                                 -( 7 )-             W.P.No. 2019\/2002<\/p>\n<p>the Superintendent, Land Records, dated 21-4-1986 and<br \/>\nhas further gone on to direct maintenance of status quo in<br \/>\nrespect of vacant land, area 3.40 acres of Survey No.<br \/>\n291\/1.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.    From a perusal of the provisions of the Code it is<br \/>\nclear that the authorities can take up proceedings for suo<br \/>\nmotu     revision     against     any     order   passed   by    the<br \/>\nsubordinate authorities, however, in the instant case the<br \/>\nCollector as well as the Board of Revenue have recorded<br \/>\na finding that the suo motu proceedings initiated in the<br \/>\npresent case were not against any order or proceeding<br \/>\nand that the exact cause of action leading to initiation of<br \/>\nproceedings was not evident nor had the parties been<br \/>\ninformed as to the specific order against which the<br \/>\nproceedings had been initiated. It is also clear from<br \/>\nreading of paragraph 9 of the impugned order passed by<br \/>\nthe Board of Revenue that the Board has gone into the<br \/>\nquestion of title and authority of the original Pattedar,<br \/>\nSmt. Sona Bai and her daughters to execute the sale<br \/>\ndeeds and has also examined the rights of the petitioners<br \/>\nas a lessee although both of the aforesaid issues were<br \/>\nnot subject-matter of the revision proceedings initiated by<br \/>\nthe Collector or in dispute before the Board of Revenue.<br \/>\nIn fact, the Board of Revenue itself, in paragraph 13, has<br \/>\nclearly observed that if there was any dispute inter se<br \/>\nbetween the parties regarding cancellation of lease or<br \/>\npossession of the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 292\/1,<br \/>\narea 5.40 acres, the said dispute should be resolved by<br \/>\nthe parties by resorting to appropriate proceedings i.e.<br \/>\nfiling of a civil suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                   -(8)-              W.P.No. 2019\/2002<\/p>\n<p>      12.   In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of<br \/>\n      the case, I am of the considered opinion that the Board of<br \/>\n      Revenue has travelled beyond the jurisdiction vested in it<br \/>\n      and has exercised its powers illegally while deciding the<br \/>\n      aforesaid issues which have to be left open to be decided<br \/>\n      by a competent Court in appropriate proceedings initiated<br \/>\n      by either of the parties. I am also of the considered<br \/>\n      opinion that as the status of the petitioner or the validity of<br \/>\n      the lease executed in favour of the petitioner were not<br \/>\n      subject-matter of the suo motu proceedings, the orders<br \/>\n      passed by the Collector and Commissioner to that extent<br \/>\n      also deserve to be and are hereby set aside and the order<br \/>\n      of the Board of Revenue to that extent is upheld. While<br \/>\n      doing so, it is made clear that the entire issue regarding<br \/>\n      right and title of the original owners, the validity of the<br \/>\n      lease deeds or the permanent lease in favour of the<br \/>\n      petitioner as well as continuation of the petitioner&#8217;s right<br \/>\n      even subsequent to the execution of the sale deeds are<br \/>\n      all kept open and to be decided by a competent Court, in<br \/>\n      case, any appropriate proceedings in that respect are<br \/>\n      taken up by either of the parties, if so advised.\n<\/p>\n<p>      13.   With the aforesaid observations and to the extent<br \/>\n      indicated above, the petition filed by the petitioner is<br \/>\n      allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there<br \/>\n      shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                    (R.S.Jha)<br \/>\n                                                      Judge<br \/>\nmct\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010 -( 1 )- W.P.No. 2019\/2002 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Writ Petition No. 2019 of 2002 Kailash Kumar Khandelwal Versus Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior and others &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;- Shri Ravish Agrawal, senior counsel with Shri Abhishek Singh, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-15T05:06:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-15T05:06:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2045,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-15T05:06:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-15T05:06:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-15T05:06:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010"},"wordCount":2045,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010","name":"Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-15T05:06:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kailash-kumar-khandelwal-vs-board-of-revenue-and-ors-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kailash Kumar Khandelwal vs Board Of Revenue And Ors on 18 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111499","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=111499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111499\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}