ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s):-

“(i) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and set aside order dated 03.01.2023 Annexure P-1, order dated 08.12.2022 Annexure P-2; order dated 17.11.2022 Annexure P-3 and order dated 07.10.2022 Annexure P-4. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ and application (Annexure P-

6) may kindly be dismissed. (iii) That any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be also granted to the petitioner.”

2. Since, the controversy involved in the present case revolves in a very narrow campus, it is not necessary to consider the facts of the case in detail. It is suffice to mention here that an order under Section 131 of MPLRC was passed against petitioner, which was challenged by him by filing an appeal before the SDO. The said appeal was also dismissed. Now, the entire controversy starts from this stage onwards.

3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the SDO, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 50 of MPLR Code. The said revision was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Harda by order dated 08.12.2022 by holding that the revision is not maintainable and second appeal would lie under Section 44(2) of MPLR Code.

3 W.P.No.2426/2023 Accordingly, petitioner filed second appeal before Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, which was registered as Case No.187/Appeal/year 2022-23, which has been dismissed by order dated 03.01.2023 by holding that in view of Section 46(b) of MPLR Code, no second appeal is maintainable against the order passed in first appeal.

4. Challenging the orders passed by Additional Collector as well as Additional Commissioner, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that as per the provisions of Section 46(b) of MPLR Code, no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in first appeal under the provisions of Section 131 of MPLR Code, therefore petitioner had rightly approached the Additional Collector by filing revision under Section 50. However, the Additional Collector without adhering to the provisions of Section 46(b) of MPLR Code wrongly dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. Only on account of the observation made by the Additional Collector that second appeal would lie, the petitioner had preferred a second appeal, which has been dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Narmadapuram by order dated 03.01.2023.

5. It is submitted by Shri Zargar that although the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Narmadapuram with regard to the non-maintainability of second appeal is correct in the light of Section 46(b) of MPLR Code but instead of dismissing the appeal as not maintainable either should have granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh revision before Additional Collector or should have set aside the order passed by the 4 W.P.No.2426/2023 Collector and should have remanded the matter back with a direction to the Additional Collector, Harda to decide the revision on merits.

6. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State.

7. However, it is submitted by Shri Dubey that against an order passed in first appeal out of the proceedings under Section 131 of MPLRC, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a revision.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. Section 46(b) of MPLR Code reads as under:-

“(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.”

10. Thus, it is clear that if an order arising out of the