ORDER

Heard on the question of admission as well as maintainability of the petition.

2. The petitioner has preferred present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by impugned order dated 22/11/2023 passed by Additional Collector, Mandsaur in Case no. 39/Revision/2023-24, whereby the revision filed under section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1957 (hereinafter referred to "MPLRC") has been dismissed.

3. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent preferred an application u/s 131 of MPLRC before the Tehsildar for opening the allegedly customary way of rain water blocked by the petitioner, by which, water logging in their agricultural fields, which was allowed vide order dated 20.01.2023. Against that order, the petitioner had preferred the first appeal under section 44 of MPLRC before the SDO, who in turn vide order dated 05.06.2023 had affirmed the order passed by the Tehsildar. Against which, the petitioner had preferred a revision U/s 50 of MPLRC before the Additional Collector, Mandsaur which was dismissed vide Impugned Order dated 22.11.2023 treating as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred present miscellaneous petition before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order suffers from a grave illegality.. Revision is well maintainable before the Additional Collector under section 50 of the MPLRC. The order passed by the Court below is perverse and against the documentary and oral evidence available on record. The Tehsildar has failed to conduct proper local inquiry for assessment of customary way of rain water as contemplated under section 131 of MPLRC. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside.

5. For the sake of reference, Section 46 of the MP Land Revenue Code is reproduced as under:

"46. No appeal against certain orders.-Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 44,- (a) no appeal shall lie from an order,- (i) allowing or rejecting an application for condonation of delay on the grounds specified in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I 963 (No. 36 of 1963), or (ii) rejecting an application for revision, or (iii) allowing or rejecting an application for stay; or

(iv) of an interim nature; or

(v) passed under the provisions of Sections 29, 30, 104, 106, 114A, 127, 146, 147, 150, 152, 161, 207, 208, 210, 212, 213, 215, 220 and 243; and (b) no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in first appeal against an order passed under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 131, Section 134, Section 173, Section 234, Section 239, Section 240, Section 241, Section 242, Section 244 and Section 248.] "

6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Additional Collector, Mandsaur has dismissed the revision on the ground that the petitioner has availed the relief of first appeal under section 44 of MPLRC and there is no provision under section 50 of MPLRC to revise the order passed under section 131 of MPLRC in first appeal. Section 50(4) of MPLRC provides that no application for revision shall be entertained against an order appealable under this Code. Apart from the above, as per the provision of section 50 of MPLRC, only Board of Revenue or Collector or Settlement Officer empowers suo-moto to revise any order passed by any other Authority subordinate to it, but Additional Collector is not empowered to exercise the powers of revisional jurisdiction.

7. The impugned order passed the authority is just, proper and in accordance with law. Therefore, the authority has not committed any error in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no illegality or jurisdictional error could be seen in the impugned order. The Apex Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Khankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has held that High Court in exercise of its power