The availability of an alternative remedy under the MPLRC generally bars the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

HIMANSHU JOSHI, J.

Heard.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jabalpur (M.P.) as well as the order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Circle- Khamariya, District- Jabalpur. By order dated 29.04.2025, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Jabalpur, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Circle- Khamariya, District- Jabalpur, on 16.11.2022 directing for partition of the land and preparation of map belonging to the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have moved an application for batankan of the land and preparation of map under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 [for short 'MPLRC'], before the Additional Tahsildar. The order-sheet of the Additional Tahsildar shows that he had called for the report from Patwari and has passed the order dated 31.08.2022 rejecting the application filed by the respondents. Thereafter, the Additional Tahsildar reviewed his own order and passed the order dated 16.11.2022 allowing the application which was dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2022. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 44 of the MPLRC before the Sub Divisional Officer, who, in a very casual manner, rejected the appeal.

4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the learned Additional Tahsildar has followed the due procedure of law prescribed under the MPLRC. He further submits that against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, an alternative remedy of filing a second appeal underSection 44 (2) and revision under Section 50 of the MPLRC, is available to the petitioner.

5. Since, the tenability of the petition is questioned on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, therefore, this Court has to deal with the said legal aspect going through the provisions contained in MPLRC.

6.Section 44 of the MPLRC deals with the provision of first appeal and second appeal, as the case may be. The same is quoted hereinunder-

[44. Appeal and appellate authorities.- (1)Save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order of a Revenue Officer competent to pass such order under this Code or the rules made thereunder-

(a) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer - to the Sub-Divisional Officer;

(b) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Deputy Survey Officer - to the Deputy Survey Officer;

(c) if such order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer - to the Collector;

(d) if such order is passed by the Deputy Survey Officer - to the District Survey Officer;

(e) if such order is passed by any Assistant Collector, Joint Collector or Deputy Collector to whom the powers have been conferred under Section 24 - to the Collector;

(f) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer in respect of whom a direction has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 12 - to such Revenue Officer as the State Government may direct;

(g) if such order is passed by a Collector or District Survey Officer - to the Commissioner;

(h) if such order is passed by the Commissioner - to the Board.

(2) Save as otherwise provided, a second appeal shall lie against every order passed in first appeal under this Code or the rules made thereunder -

(a) by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Survey Officer or the Collector or the District Survey Officer - to the Commissioner;

(b) by the Commissioner - to the Board.

(3) The second appeal shall lie only -

(a) if the original order has in the first appeal been varied or reversed otherwise than in a matter of cost; or (b) on any of the following gro