ORDER

1. Heard finally.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 29.1.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal, whereby, on an application filed by the LRs of the respondent No.1 under section 52 (1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code of 1959'), the operation of the order dated 23.1.2025 passed the Additional Commissioner himself has been stayed.

3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid order is without jurisdiction, as the Additional Commissioner, who had decided the second appeal vide order dated 23.1.2025, could not have stayed his own order under section 52(1) of the Code of 1959, as the aforesaid section only provides for the stay of the order passed by the Revenue Authority, if an appeal or revision is to be preferred against the said order.

4. It is submitted that since the order dated 23.1.2025 was passed in a second appeal, there is no subsequent appeal provided against such order, and the revision is also not maintainable, and the aforesaid order can be challenged only in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is submitted that the order be quashed and the petition be allowed.

5. Counsel for the LRs of the respondent No.1 has opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, and on perusal of the record, as also the provisions of section 52 of the Code of 1959, this Court finds that so far as section 52 is concerned, the relevant excerpt reads as under:-

"52. Stay of execution of orders.

(1) A Revenue Officer who has passed any order or his successor in office may, at any time before the expiry of the period prescribed for appeal or revision, direct the execution of such order to be stayed for such time as may be requisite for filing an appeal or revision and obtaining a stay order from the appellate or revisional authority."

7. A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly reveals that such an application is maintainable only when an appeal or revision is to be filed against the order, the stay of which has been sought, and admittedly, since the order dated 23.1.2025 has been passed in a second appeal, no third appeal is provided under the Code, whereas, the revision is also not maintainable against an order passed in a second appeal, as provided under section 50(2)(b) of the Code of 1959.

8. In such circumstances, it is apparent that the Additional Commissioner has clearly exceeded in his jurisdiction in staying his own order under section 52(1) of the Code of 1959.

9. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and the order dated 29.1.2025 is hereby quashed.

10. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.