JUDGMENT

{Delivered on 3rd day of August, 2021}

Per Justice Anand Pathak, J.:

1. The present intra court appeal under Section 2(i) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellants assailing the orders dated 25-02-2021 passed in Review Petition No.364/2020 and 12-07-2019 passed in Writ Petition No.12687/2019 by learned Single Judge wherein the direction was issued to the Cantonment Board to decide the demarcation application of petitioner/respondent No.1.

2. Facts in brief for adjudication are that appellants issued the order dated 13-04-2017 purportedly exercising power under Section 239 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2006”) and called upon respondent No.1 to remove the encroachment. Respondent No.1 preferred Writ Petition No.18960/2017 before the Writ Court and the Single Bench vide order dated 30-11-2018 disposed of the petition with the direction to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal under Section 340(1) of the Act of 2006. As per the said provision, appeal lies before the Cantonment Board.

3. It further appears that in pursuance to the order dated 30-11- 2018 passed by the Writ Court, appeal was preferred and heard by the Cantonment Board and vide order dated 25-02-2019 appeal was decided and it was resolved by the Board that appeal of respondent No.1 was bereft of merits and therefore dismissed. The said order/resolution further resolved to conduct a joint survey of GLR survey No.66 with the representatives of Cantonment Board, Defence Estate Officer, LMA and State Government on the basis of revenue record of 1933.

4. It further appears that another writ petition was preferred by the petitioner/respondent No.1 vide Writ Petition No.12687/2019 on the ground that demarcation has not been made and the application for demarcation before the appellate authority has not been decided. Therefore, direction was given to the appellate authority to consider the appeal in accordance with law. Said order precipitated filing of review by the present appellants/Union of India on the ground that when appeal has already been decided then demarcation is only an in-house decision for facilitating demarcation for posterity and it had nothing to do with the rights of petitioner. Review Petition bearing No.364/2020 was dismissed vide order dated 25-02- 2021, therefore, the writ appeal has been preferred.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that when appeal of respondent No.1 has been considered and decided by the Cantonment Board vide order dated 25-02-2019 available on record, thereafter respondent No.1 had no occasion to prefer any writ petition while not disclosing the correct facts and in correct perspective. Order of demarcation is in fact an in house decision reflected through resolution which has nothing to do with the rights of respondent No.1. If she is aggrieved then she can prefer revision under Section 343 of the Act of 2006.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the submission and submitted that the issue regarding demarcation is still pending and therefore respondent No.1 preferred writ petition No.12687/2019 and learned Single Judge rightly passed the order for expediting hearing of appeal. He prayed for dismissal of appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video- conferencing and perused the record appended to it.

8. This is a case where respondent No.1 is allegedly an encroacher of land belonging to Union of India/Ministry of Defence. A notice was issued to respondent No.1 for removal of encroachment and from there the litigation precipitated. Once the litigation culminated into decision over appeal preferred by respondent No.1 and said order dated 25-02-2019 passed by the Cantonment Board reveals application of mind over the case of respondent No.1 and thereafter appeal was dismissed, therefore, as such contention of respondent No.1 regarding her claim over the land st