ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) Hon’ble High Court may Kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by setting-

aside the order dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respondent No. 1. Further also be pleased to allow this petition, in the interest of justice.

(ii) Any other order or orders that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner purchased the land in dispute i.e. Khasra No. 15/7 by registered sale-deed dated 28.03.2008. Thereafter, she filed an application for demarcation and found that the respondents have encroached upon the land belonging to the petitioner. Accordingly, she moved an application under Section 250 of MPLR Code which was dismissed by the Naib Tehsildar. The Naib Tehsildar Handiya by order dated 29.01.2018 passed in Revenue Case No. 5/A-70/2012-13 came to a conclusion that the application filed by petitioner under Section 250 of MPLR Code does not contain the mandatory ingredients of Section 250 of MPLR Code because petitioner has not pleaded and proved that on what date she was dispossessed.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered as Appeal No. 33/A-70/2017-18 and was allowed by SDO (Revenue), Harda, District Harda by order dated 30.01.2019 and the order passed by the Tehsildar was set aside. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Hoshangabad which was disposed of vide order dated 24.12.2020 by which the matter was again remitted back to the SDO to decide the case in view of the orders passed in Civil Suit No. 16-A/2017 and subsequent Civil Appeal which was registered as R.C. No. 90/2017 and also a Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1021/2018 pending before this Court.

4. The respondent No. 4 preferred Miscellaneous Petition No.1074/2021 alleging that the remand of the case on the basis of order passed in the Civil Suit No. 16-A/2017 was bad because Khasra No. 15/7, which is the subject matter of the present petition is not the subject matter of the civil suit, whereas; Khasra No. 99/19 and 99/20 are the subject matter of the civil litigation. Even counsel for petitioner admitted that Khasra No. 15/7 is not the subject matter of the civil suit. Therefore, the order dated 24.12.2020 passed by Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Hoshangabad passed in case No. 15/Appeal/2019-20 was set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Hoshangabad was directed to decide the appeal within 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is submitted that now by the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Hoshangabad by order dated 05.01.2024 passed in Case No. 180/Appeal/2023-24 has allowed the appeal and has set aside the order passed by the SDO (Revenue), Harda, District Harda and has restored back the order passed by Tehsildar.

5. Challenging the order passed by Courts below, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that in view of Section 250 of MPLR Code, it is clear that no limitation is provided for taking action and thus, the Revenue Courts committed a material illegality by holding that petitioner did not point out the date on which she was dispossessed.

6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.

7. The petitioner has filed a copy of the application filed under Section 250 of MPLR Code. This application was filed on 14.05.2013, In the said application, it is nowhere mentioned that on what date, the petitioner was dispossessed. Even during the course of arguments, it was submitted by counsel for petitioner that from the date of purchase of the property, the petitioner was never disposs