ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has called in question orders dated 28.1.2019 (P-7), 27.6.2018 (P-5), 11.8.2017 (P-3) and 25.4.2015 (P-2).

3. The facts of the case are that the respondents No. 4 to 9 filed an application under section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (in short "MPLRC, 1959") before the concerned Tehsildar for correction of land record. The record shows when that the matter was taken up for consideration before the Lok Adalat on 25.4.2015, the concerned Tehsildar has passed the order directing for appropriate correction as was prayed for by the respondents No. 4 to 9. Against the order dated 25.4.2015(Annexure-P/2), the petitioner filed review application before the concerned Tehsildar who vide order dated 11.8.2017 (Annexure-P/3) rejected the said application stating therein that since the order was passed in Lok Adalat, therefore no revision is maintainable. The order dated 11.8.2017 was challenged by the petitioner under section 44(1) of MPLRC before the respondent No.2/ Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 27.6.2018 (Annexure-P/5) dismissed the appeal stating therein that no appeal would be maintainable against the order passed in Lok Adalat.

4. Aggrieved by the said order of the SDO, the petitioner preferred a revision application under section 50 of MPLRC, 1959. Vide order dated 28.1.2019 (Annexure-P/7), the Collector dismissed the revision on the ground that the revision is not maintainable against the order passed in appeal. Against all these orders, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the perusal of application submitted by respondents before the Tehsildar for correction of land record (Annexure-P/1) itself shows that the case of the respondents was that in the year 1998-1999, the name of Shivraj Bahadur Singh was wrongly recorded in the revenue record in connivance with the revenue officers. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that it cannot be disputed that in the year 1998-1999 the name of Shivraj Bahadur Singh was recorded in the revenue record and whether the same was correctly recorded or it was the result of any mischief etc. could have been determined only when the notices were served on Shivraj Bahadur Singh. He further submits that the respondents did not array the petitioner as party in the application under section 115 of MPLRC, 1959 and therefore, the action is vitiated.

6. Aforesaid position is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the private respondent and he states that Shivraj Bahdur Singh has nothing to do with the property in question. His name was wrongly recorded and therefore, it was not necessary to array him as a party in the application under section 115 MPLRC, 1959. He submits that even otherwise also, the order was passed in the Lok Adalat and therefore, no petition would be maintainable under article 227 of Constitution.

7. Taking into consideration aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the name of Shivraj Bahadur Singh was recorded in the revenue record in the year 1998-1999 and the same was sought to be corrected with the name of Vishwanath Singh. When an application under section 115 of MPLRC, 1959 is made, it is necessary to implead all parties interested, as a respondent, so that, appropriate opportunity of hearing can be afforded to such party. Clause (b) of sub section 2 of section 115 of the MPLRC, 1959 says that no order shall be passed under sub section (1) of section 115 of MPLRC, 1959 without giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties interested. In absence of impleading Shivraj Bahadur Singh as the party in the application under section 115 of MPLRC, 1959, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 664] , following the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commiss