ORDER

Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated

11.10.2012 passed by Board of Revenue, Gwalior whereby the order passed by Tehsildar dated 11.10.2001 has been upheld on merit.

The facts of the case are in short as under:- 2. The respondents filed an application under Section 250 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 claiming possession of land Survey No.

58/3, area 7.25 acre. According to the respondents, the aforesaid land is an agricultural land. The survey No. 7, area 3.50 acre is recorded in the name of Railway, but during the demarcation and as per the report of Revenue Inspector dated 23.03.2001, the land measuring 210 ft. by 230 ft. was found in unauthorised possession of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner be directed to handover the possession. This application was registered as Revenue Case No. 3-a/70/2000-01. Notices were sent to the petitioner, but despite its service, no one appeared on behalf of petitioner, therefore, the Tehsildar proceeded ex- parte and after considering the all revenue records and demarcation report found that petitioner is in unauthorised possession of land, area 210 ft. by 230 ft. belongs to the respondent and directed to handover the possession to them.

3. After the aforesaid order, an execution proceedings were initiated by the respondents in which the notice dated 15.05.2008 was served to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, after receipt of this notice issued in an execution case, they came to know about the ex-parte order before the Tehsildar. Immediately two applications were filed, one for stay of the execution proceedings and another for setting aside the ex-parte order. Vide order dated 22.12.2008, the learned Tehsildar has dismissed both the applications for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Badwah. Vide order dated 18.05.2009, the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar for deciding both the applications after giving opportunity of hearing. The petitioner again filed an application under Section 32 seeking stay of order dated 11.10.2004. The petitioner filed an application that both the applications be not decided together. Vide order dated 28.02.2009, the learned Tehsildar has passed an interlocutory order that both the applications are liable to be heard conjointly as ground raised in both are same.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid interlocutory order, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 50 of MPLRC before the Additional Collector, Khargone. Vide order dated 16.11.2009, the Collector has dismissed the revision and maintained the order dated 28.07.2009 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to distinguish the nature of both the applications.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed another revision under Section 50 of MPLRC before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner vide order dated 28.06.2011 set aside the order of Additional Collector as well as the Tehsildar dated 28/07/2009 and remanded the matter back to decide afresh both the applications separately. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. Vide order dated 11.10.2012, the Board of Revenue has not only examined the validity of order of Additional Collector and Commissioner (Annexure P/10 & P/11) and also examined the validity of the ex-parte order of Tehsildar and upheld the same on merit and directed railway to handover the possession of the said land. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of Board of Revenue inter alia on the ground that the Board of Revenue has wrongly entertained the revision on merit of the case. At the most the Board of Revenue could have remanded this matter back to the Tehsildar to decide the application for stay as well as application for setting aside of the ex-parte order. The Board of Revenue has wron