N.K. Mody, J.

Shri Aravind Dudawat, Advocate for Petitioner.

Shri K.M. Mishra, Panel Lawyer, for Respondents No. 1 and 2.

Shri H.K. Shukla, Advocate, for Respondent No. 14.

Heard.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 16-6-2003 passed by Special Judge and Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 330-A/2000 whereby the application filed by applicant - Defendant under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC has been dismissed, present revision has been filed.

Short facts of the case are that Respondent No. 14 filed a suit against Petitioner and rest of the Respondents under Order 1 Rule 8, CPC wherein it was alleged that Respondent No. 14 is in occupation of the land admeasuring 70 x 40 feet bearing Survey Nos. 1250 and 1251 situated at village Bahodapur, opposite to Mental Hospital, Gwalior. It was alleged that on a part of the land admeasuring 15 x 20 feet two temples have been constructed and the rest of the property was covered by boundary wall. It was alleged that in the suit land there is no personal interest of Respondent No. 14. It was also alleged that proceedings were initiated u/s 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and fine was imposed vide order dated 26-12-1994. In the circumstances it was prayed that State be restrained from dismantling the boundary walls and temple in compliance of the order dated 26-12-1994.

During pendency of the suit an application was filed by the Petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC wherein it was alleged that the suit is not maintainable because the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the order passed u/s 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. The application was dismissed, against which the present revision has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that prior to the amendment in M.P. Land Revenue Code there was Sub-section (3) to Section 248 M.P. Land Revenue Code, which lays down as under:

(3) No order under Sub-section (1) shall prevent any persons from establishing his rights in a Civil Court.

Learned Counsel submits that vide Amendment Act No. 7/2000 which came into force w.e.f. 15-3-2000 Sub-section (3) of Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code has been deleted. It is submitted that in view of this the suit is not maintainable.

Shri K.M. Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer, submits that Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code provides exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 14 submits that no amendment has been made in Section 257 of the Act, therefore, even after amendment it is the choice of the party to challenge the order before the Civil Court or before the Revenue Court. Since, every order passed by the Revenue Authorities is appellable or revisable u/s 44 and Section 50 and Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, is amended, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and deserves to be set aside. After the amendment the order passed u/s 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code cannot be challenged before Civil Court.

The revision filed by the Petitioner is allowed. The suit stands dismissed. Respondent No. 14 is free to challenge the order before the Revenue Authority. No order as to costs.

Final Result : Allowed