The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the specific jurisdiction provided under Section 257-G of MPLRC and obtain sanction from the Collector as required by Section 115 of MPLRC for correction of land records.

ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 13.01.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sub Division, Lahar District Bhind in case No.16/A-5/2021-22, whereby on petitioner's application for correction of map of Survey No.893/4 situated at Ward No.12, Mihona, District Bhind even after conducting an enquiry and calling the report from the Revenue Authority, no order was passed instead on the ground that civil appeal is pending at the behest of present petitioner with regard to same survey no., therefore, the Revenue Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain in this petition for correcting the land record, the application under Sections 107 and 115 of MPLRC was rejected.

2. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. S.D. Singh - Advocate submitted that the impugned order suffers from basic perversity and illegality as Section 257-G of MPLRC which provides for specific jurisdiction for the Revenue Authorities lays down that if any question with regard to demarcation of boundaries or fixing the boundary marks arises than the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority is exclusive and ignoring the aforesaid legal provision, the learned Sub Divisional Officer has passed the said order which deserves to be quashed.

3. It was further contended that since the map which was required to be corrected was for a period prior to five years, therefore, it required Sub Divisional Officer to refer the matter to Collector for passing appropriate orders but instead thereof, Sub Divisional Officer himself usurped the power of Collector and passed the impugned order which is bad in law.

4. It was further contended that the ground on which the application under Sections 107 and 115 of MPLRC was rejected that civil appeal arising out of civil suit at the behest of present petitioner was pending for adjudication on the subject matter which is in dispute before it, therefore, the application could not be entertained is perse illegal, as from bare perusal of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.223/2011 dated 17.12.2021, it would be clear that the suit basically was for declaring one sale-deed to be null & void, which was executed showing the part of the land which was sold by such sale-deed falling in Survey No.893/4, which was admittedly of the present petitioner and as the defendants/respondents have not disputed the title of the present petitioner over Survey No.893/4, therefore, it could not be said that the dispute in the civil suit and the controversy to be adjudicated by the Revenue Authorities, for correction of the map were the same and when the controversy involved in the civil suit as well as the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities were not akin to each other, the Revenue Authorities could have/should have exercised the power as provided to them under the Code.

5. In the aforesaid facts, it was contended that the present petition be allowed and suitable directions be issued to pass appropriate order after obtaining sanction of the Collector.

6 . Per contra, Mr. S.S. Kushwah - Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Bansal - Advocate for respondent No.4 opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended that no illegality has been committed by Sub Divisional Officer in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Sections 107 and 115 of MPLRC and Sub Divisional Officer was right in holding that since the matter in dispute before him was similar to that of dispute raised by the petitioner before the Civil Court, therefore, till decision of Civil Court, he has no right to proceed in the matter. It was further submitted that the relief which was claimed in the suit by the present petitioner was with regard to Survey No.893/4 only and herein also correction of map with regard to Survey No.893/4 has been sought and once the Civil Court has held that the petiti