ORDER

The aforesaid petitions arise from same orders, and are between the same parties and concern the same property. Hence, they are being decided by this common order.

2. The property in dispute was owned by deceased Balaram Nayak.

He is survived by 4 sons and 3 daughters. The siblings are at loggerheads, the 4 sons are at one side and the 3 daughters are at the opposite side. MP 3817/2023 has been filed by the son(s), and all the other three cases have been filed at the instance of the daughter(s).

3. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the matters are that the deceased Balaram owned certain property comprised in agricultural land, which is stated by the daughters, to be ancestral property inherited by him from his forefathers. He is also stated to have executed a will in favour of his sons, to the exclusion of his daughters which is dated 25.2.1997 and he had thereafter expired on 27.9.2013. The matter of mutation on basis of will has been decided by a separate order passed today in MP 2557/2023 and MP 2491/2023.

4. The deceased Balaram Nayak has executed a partition deed between himself and his sons on 25.6.1999. On the basis of this partition deed, proceedings for mutation on basis of such partition of land were initiated by the deceased Balaram and his sons and the mutation on basis of partition among Balaram and his sons was allowed vide order dated 21.2.2006 by the Tehsildar (Annexure P-1 to MP 2429/2023). This order excluded all the daughters of deceased Balaram from the property. The daughters were not noticed in such proceedings.

5. The petitioner of MP 2429/2023 (Munni Devi), filed an appeal against the said partition order before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 02.6.2015. The Sub-Divisonal Officer, vide order dated 11.2.2019, rejected the application under Section-5 of Limitation Act and consequently, the said appeal also stood dismissed.

6. The petitioner of MP 2429/2023 then filed a revision before the Collector, which was allowed vide order dated 24.12.2019 and the order of the SDO was set aside. The Collector, vide order dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure P-9), allowed application u/s 5 Limitation Act and directed the SDO to decide the appeal on merits. This was on the ground that since the daughter Munnidevi was not party to the mutation proceedings instituted on basis of partition, hence, the delay ought to have been construed liberally in filing the appeal.

7. The sons of late Balaram then filed a Revision under section 50 MPLRC before the Additional Commissioner, which was allowed vide order dated 06.2.2023 (Annexure P-1) by the Additional Commissioner, on the ground that day to day dely was not explained by the appellant before the SDO. This order dated 06.2.2023 has now been challenged in MP 2429/2023 by Munni Devi, one of the daughters of late Balaram. These are the facts leading to filing of MP 2429/2023.

8. MP No. 3817/2023 has been filed by the sons of late Balaram to challenge the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Collector, that has already been set aside by the Addl. Commissioner and the order of the Addl. Commissioner has already been challenged in MP 2429/2023. However, this petition has been filed because in MP 2429/2023, a ground has been taken that since the order of the Collector dated 24.12.2019 was itself in a Revision, hence, another Revision before the Addl. Commissioner filed by the sons was not maintainable. Thus, the sons have now filed MP 3817/2023 assailing the order that was challenged in second Revision before the Addl. Commissioner.

9. Taking up these two MPs, it is seen that the sons of late Balaram filed a Revision before the Addl Commissioner against the order of Collector dated 24.12.2019 that was itself passed in a Revision. As per Section 50 (2) (c) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, a revision against an order passed in Revision is barred.

10. Thus, the order impugned passed by the Addl. Co