The central legal point established in the judgment is that if an application is filed prior to an amendment and the amendment is not applicable from retrospective effect, the authorities are bound to consider and decide it on merits as per the existing laws.

Advocate Appeared :

Vishal Mishra, J.

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

2. The present misc. petition is being filed challenging the order dated 7.09.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Basoda, District Vidisha, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 89 of the MPLRC has been rejected.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that although he is having a remedy of appeal but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case he has preferred to file a petition directly before this Hon'ble Court for the reasons that after rejection of application under Section 89 by the SDO he has preferred an application under Section 115 to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has considered the application and has not passed any order upon the application and he remanded the matter back to the concerning SDO for consideration pointing out the fact that after the amendment in MPLRC on 27.07.2018 the provisions are repealed. Therefore, the present petition has been filed directly. It is pointed out that he has preferred an application under Section 115 and 116 of MPLRC for correction in the land records on the basis of premise that father of the petitioner No. 1 late Shri Hazarilal was owner of survey no. 332, 334 (old survey no. 211 & 232) and survey No. 371 (old no. 228 & 260) and his name was recorded in the revenue records since 1914-15. This entry existed even in land records of Samvat 2007 (year 1950) and the entry continued upto 1997-98. Suddenly, the name of the petitioners was deleted from the records without any order of the competent authority. Therefore, an application has been filed for correction in the revenue records. The aforesaid application came up for hearing before the learned Collector on 8.6.2017 and the learned Collector has opined that the said application is maintainable under Section 89 of MPLRC before the SDO which is competent authority and the application was rejected. Thereafter, an application under Section 89 of MPLRC with a prayer to make correction in records was moved before the SDO. The SDO being satisfied with the report of the Tahsildar for corrections of the records make a representation before the Collector for further action vide order sheet dated 7.3.2019 and on 16.04.2019 the records were called with the report from the Superintendent of land records. Notices were issued to applicant for producing documents and accordingly on 11.09.2019 reply was filed. On 22.10.2019, the learned SDO passed an order overruling the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Tahsildar and forwarded the representation for correction in the records to the Collector for further action. It was again sent back to the SDO for information on 8 points vide order dated 3.1.2020. The same were answered by the Tahsildar on 17.01.2020. The Tahsildar has again recommended for correction in the revenue records. The Collector vide order dated 24.7.2020 (Annexure P/9) forwarded the same to the SDO recommending that correction should be made in the land records. The learned SDO without considering the representation and report of Tahsildar has dismissed the application of the petitioners without even complying with the orders passed by the superior authorities on 7.9.2019. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the earlier application filed under Section 89 has been repealed and the application under Section 115 of MPLRC has been dismissed with a direction to file an application under Section 89 of MPLRC. It is submitted that the learned SDO should have considered the application and has passed the order on merits without making observation that as Section 89 of MPLRC is repealed no orders can be passed on application. It is argued that the application under Section 89 of MPLRC was filed prior to the amendment, therefore, as the amendment is prospective in nature, the application should have been considered by the SDO and decided on merits. He has relied upon the ju