The court upheld the Commissioner's authority to reverse the Additional Collector's decision, emphasizing the illegality of the latter's jurisdiction in entertaining a non-maintainable appeal under the M.P. Land Revenue Code.

ORDER

1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2] This writ petition has been filed by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated 12.09.2024, passed by respondent No.1 – Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore whereby the order dated 17.03.2023, passed by the Additional Collector, Indore in Appeal No.16/22-23 has been reversed, and consequently, the order passed by Naib Tehsildar, Malharganj, Indore on 05.09.2020 has also been set aside, directing that all the revenue records, Khasra, Map, trace etc. be restored to its original position as it existed prior to the order dated 05.09.2020.

3] In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioners, along with other members of the family had an undivided joint ownership in lands bearing Survey Nos.3/1 and 3/2 situated at Village Nainod, Tehsil Malharganj, District Indore, and pursuant to an order of subdivision ( Fardbatwara) dated 29.03.2010, petitioners viz., Devika Chaudhary, Dhruvraj Chaudhary and Madhuri Choudhary became the independent owners of the land bearing Survey Nos.3/2/1, 3/2/2 and 3/2/3 respectively.

4] The petitioners‟ case is that on the basis of the aforesaid Fardbatwara , on 19.06.2020, an application was filed by them for sub-division of land bearing Survey Nos.3/2/2 and 3/2/3 into 3/2/2/1, 3/2/2/2, 3/2/3/1 and 3/2/3/2, pursuant to which, a public notice was also issued by the Tehsildar on 19.06.2020, and finally the sub- division was allowed by the Tehsildar vide its order dated 05.09.2020. Against said order dated 05.09.2020, an appeal was preferred by the respondent no.2 Manjri Chaudhary on 30.12.2021, under Section 44(1) of the M.P. La nd Revenue Code, 1959 (in short „the MPLRC‟) along with an application for condonation of delay before the Sub- Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Malharganj, Indore. However, on the objections filed by the petitioners, the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal on 23.05.2022, holding that the respondent No.2 Smt. Manjri Choudhary was not a party to the previous proceedings and also that no leave to appeal was obtained by respondent No.2. However, a liberty was also granted to the respondent No.2 to file a fresh appeal, after obtaining the leave to appeal in accordance with law. The petitioners‟ further case is that instead of seeking leave to appeal, on 13.06.2022, the respondent No.2 filed a review petition under Section 51 of the MPLRC. However, the aforesaid review petition also came to be dismissed on 12.09.2022 by the Sub- Divisional Officer holding that no new grounds are made out.

5] Against the aforesaid order dated 12.09.2022, a first appeal under Section 44(3) of the MPLRC was also preferred by the respondent no.2 before the Additional Collector, Indore. However, according to the petitioners, it was in fact a second appeal. In the aforesaid appeal, an application was also filed by the petitioners for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that against an order of review, an appeal cannot be filed in terms of Section 46(a)(ii) of the MPLRC. However, vide its order dated 17.03.2023, the Additional Collector, Indore dismissed the appeal on the ground that the respondent No.2 failed to establish as to how her right was affected on account of the order of sub-division ( Batankan ) of the petitioners ‟ land . The aforesaid order dated 17.03.2023 was also challenged by the respondent No.2 by filing a second appeal under Section 44(2) of the MPLRC before the respondent No.1, Commissioner, Indore Division, who has allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of Additional Collector, and consequently, the order of sub-division ( Fard batwara ) dated 05.09.2020, passed by the Tehsildar has also been set aside.

6] Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Commissioner has erred in allowing the aforesaid appeal, despite the fact that it was practically a third appeal before him, which is not even maintainable under the MPLRC. S