ORDER

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He submits that learned Collector passed an order directing the demolition of construction and correction of record. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code along with the stay application before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.2.2020 by assigning single reason that prima facie no relevance/justification is shown for grant of interim order. Hence, interim prayer was rejected.

3. Criticizing this order, Shri Thakre, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of stay application is on improper and irrelevant ground. The Court below has erroneously held that no relevance/justification is shown by the petitioner when the justification for praying for stay cannot be doubted.

4. Shri B.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.

5. No other point is pressed by counsel for the parties.

6. This is trite that while considering the stay application, the authority/Co