SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 20149

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Diyanshu Gahriya – Appellant
Versus
Smt Sunita Bai – Respondent


Advocates:
Shiv Kumar Sharma,

ORDER

By the instant petition, the petitioners are raising grievance in respect of an order dated 18.12.2022 passed by the SDO on an objection raised by the respondent whereby after getting demarcation done and application submitted by the petitioner, the order had been passed by the Tehsildar but no notice to the adjoining land owners was served, then objection has come from therespondent under Section 129(3) of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Said objection was considered by the SDO and remitted the matter directing the Tehsildar to reconsider the application afresh submitted by the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to other adjoining land owners and pass order thereafter.

The melancholy of the petitioners is with the observation made by the SDO directing Tehsildar to consider their application and also call application of other co-owner for Batankan of their land and then pass appropriate order on the petitioners' application. Learned counsel submits that this observation is illegal and beyond the scope of litigation. He propounds that in case no adjoining land owner moves application for batankan then the application of the petitioners will be kept pending and it is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top