ORDER

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by Commissioner, Gwalior Division in Appeal No.170/2020-21 whereby the order dated 25.03.2011 passed by SDO by which the application under Section 89 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was allowed and the order dated 07.07.2016 passed by Collector by which appeal preferred against the order dated 25.03.2011 had been dismissed, had been set-aside holding that under Section 89 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the SDO has no power to correct the land records as the same has been conferred to the Tehsildar.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 7 submits that Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA Hukma, Babariya and Barelal are brothers and son of one Bansi Jatav. They executed a registered power of attorney in favour of petitioner upon which survey No.1467/2 had been sold through registered sale-deed to approx 80 persons. There is no dispute with regard to the said power of attorney, however the dispute is with regard to forged sale-deed in respect of which a civil suit had been filed by the respondents which was dismissed and appeal is pending. In the present petition, challenge is made to the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by Additional Commissioner,Gwalior Division by which the order passed by the SDO dated 25.03.2011 and the order passed by the Collector dated 07.07.2016 had been set-aside. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 as the SDO on the application under Section 89 of the MPLRC was not having any jurisdiction to pass an order. The power has been delegated to the Tehsildar to entertain an application under Section 89 of MPLRC, therefore, the initial proceedings ought to have been initiated before Tehsildar and if any order would have been passed against the petitioner, then the same could had been challenged by him before appellate authority i.e. SDO. Thus, the SDO had transgressed its jurisdiction while passing the order dated

25.03.2011.

3. It was further submitted that the State Government vide notification dated 27^th June, 1968 while exercising the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 had conferred the powers of Sub- Divisional Officer under Section 87 of the MPLRC (new section 89 of MPLRC) on all Tehsildars. Thus, the SDO had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers conferred under Section 89 of MPLRC.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA

4. It was further submitted that under Section 89 of MPLRC errors can be corrected and the order cannot be set-aside but learned SDO vide order dated 25.03.2011 had set-aside the order of partition and mutation by holding the same to be an error. Considering the same, learned Additional Commissioner vide impugned order dated 11.02.2021 had rightly set-aside the order dated 25.03.2011 passed by SDO and the order dated 07.07.2016 passed by the Additional Collector by holding that the order dated 11.02.2021 shall remain subject to final outcome of the decision of civil court in civil suit filed by the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 89 of MPLRC, the original authority is SDO. Section 24 of MPLRC is an enabling provision which enables the State Government to delegate additional power to an authority. As per notification dated 27.06.1968, while exercising powers under Section 24(2) of MPLRC the powers conferred upon SDO under Section 87 of MPLRC (new 89 of MPLRC) had been conferred upon Tehsildars by the State Government. In Section 89 of MPLRC, it is clearly mentioned that the powers are vested in relation to Section 89 of MPLRC with the SDO. Once the power has been delegated, the original power as per the main enactment (Code) shall remain still vested with the Sub-Divisional Officer. Thus, learned Additional Commissioner has committed grave illegality in passing the impugned order dated 11.02.2021. Hence