ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition calling in question order dated 28.9.2020 passed in Revision No. 96/revision/2019-2020. By said order, Upper Collector (south), Bhopal has dismissed revision against interlocutory order of vacating stay.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Tahsildar vide its order dated 30.11.2012 has partly allowed the application under sections 115 and 116 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue code, 1959 for correction of revenue records filed by Sheela Verma (R-1) and Pushp Mayur Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit (R5). Tehsildar, Capital projects, Tehsil Huzur, Bhopal has relied on judgement and decree dated 29.10.2010 passed by Fifth Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No. 399-A/2006. Learned Additional District Judge held registered sale deed dated 28.3.2000 to be valid and effective. First Appeal is filed against order of Fifth Additional District Judge which is pending for consideration and there is no stay in it. Tehsildar examined registered sale deed dated 28.3.2000 which was Registry Nos. 5051/ 28.3.2000, 5052/28.3.2000 and 5125/ 29.3.2000. After examination of records, Tehsildar passed an order to correct revenue entries on basis of registered sale deed dated 28.3.2000 and 8.12.1980.

3. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Tehsildar before SDO, T.T Nagar, Bhopal. Said Appeal No. 09/2012-2013 is pending before SDO. During pendency of appeal, learned Sub Divisional Officer T.T. Nagar Bhopal vacated stay order granted in favour of petitioner vide order dated 18.2.2020. Learned Sub Divisional Officer revenue held that stay was granted vide order dated 30.11.2012 till next date of hearing. Said order is not as per law and, therefore, the same was vacated after hearing the parties.

4. Petitioner filed revision before Upper Collector challenging the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer. Learned Upper Collector vide order dated 28.9.2020 dismissed the revision on ground that stay order was operating since 11.12.2012 for last seven years and as per amendment introduced on 27.7.2018, proviso to section 52(2) of M.P Land Revenue Code 1959, execution of orders shall not be stayed for more than three months at a time or until the date of next hearing, which ever is earlier.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that proviso to section 52(2) of M.P land Revenue Code, 1959, was wrongly interpreted by Commissioner. It was wrongly held that stay will only operate for three months. However in proviso to section 52(2) of M.P Land Revenue Code, 1959 lays down that stay can be granted for three months at a time or until next date of hearing whichever is earlier. This means that stay can continue for more than three months, if stay is extended on the next date fixed. Petitioner raised second ground that he was not heard while passing the impugned order. No other ground was raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner.

6. Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 submitted that though he had filed a reply, but this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and he is ready to argue the petition on the basis of record filed by petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for respondents that Upper Commissioner has rightly vacated interim stay order which was granted in the year 2012. Operation of order of Tehsildar was stayed by appellate Court since 2012 and Upper Collector has rightly exercised his jurisdiction in vacating the stay order. Upper Collector has acted within his jurisdiction and powers as provided to him under the said section. There is no error of jurisdiction in order passed by Upper Collector and order passed by Sub Divisional Officer. Counsel for respondents relied on judgement reported in 2013 SCC online page 9779-Smt. Munni Sharma v. Babu Lal. In this case, Board of Revenue allowed revision with aid of proviso of section 52(2) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 without opportunity of hearing to other side.