IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL th ON THE 26 OF APRIL, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 1927 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

1. ARVIND KUMAR SHAH S/O LATE SHRI BHAGWANDAS SHAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O VILAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. NARENDRA KUMAR SHAH S/O LATE SHRI BHAGWANDAS SHAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. ABHAYLAL SHAH S/O LATE RAMBHAROSH SHAH, AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. RADHIKA PRASAD SHAH(DEAD) THROUGH LRS PARASNATH SHAH S/O LATE RADHIKA PRASAD SHAH R/O VILLAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI A.S. HUSSAIN - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS)

AND

1. RAMLAKHAN SHAH S/O LATE SHRI KISHAN SHAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VILAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. BUDHLAL SHAH S/O LATE SHRI KISHUN SHAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. RADHESHAYAM SHAH S/O LATE SHRI KISHUN SHAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SITARAM SHAH S/O LATE SHRI GANESH SHAH R/O VILLAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. RAMPRATAP SHAH S/O LATE GANESH SHAH R/O VILLAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SUKHRAJ SHAH S/O LATE VISHUN SHAH R/O VILLAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. RAMVICHARE SHAH S/O LATE VISHUN SHAH R/O VILLAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

8. BACHHAN SHAH S/O LATE VISHUN SHAH R/O VILLAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

9. GAURA DEVI W/O LATE RAMAVTAR SHAH R/O VILLAGE RAJMILAN, TEHSIL MADA, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VIBUDHENDRA MISHRA - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/CAVEATOR)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 24.09.2019 (Annexure P-1)

passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mada, District Singrauli invoking authority under Section 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code after becoming functus officio inasmuch as he had dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the Tahsildar on 10.04.2018 in Case No.159/Appeal/2015-16.

It is submitted that even the Additional Commissioner erred in not appreciating the finer aspect of law and despite mentioning a fact on internal Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH running page 21 of the order that inherent powers under Section 32 of the MPLRC can be exercised only when there are no other express provisions in the act or subject to the express provisions of the act, yet failed to do justice between the parties and, therefore, order dated 24.09.2019 and the one order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 01.01.2024 deserves to be set aside inasmuch as the course which was open to the Sub Divisional Officer was under Section 51 of the MPLRC and there being an express provision of review under Section 51 of he MPLRC, power under Section 32 of MPLRC could not have been exercised by the Sub Divisional Officer.

Thus, orders of Sub Divisional Officer dated 24.09.2019 and the Additional Commissioner dated 01.01.2024 being cryptic are hereby quashed.

In view of the above, petition is allowed and disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL)

JUDGE MTK Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD TABISH