ORDER

With the concurrence of the parties, I deem it appropriate to consider this case on merits on the basis of pleadings and material documents attached with the writ petition.

The controversy appears to be in a very narrow compass. Vide order dated 07.07.2022 passed in W.P. No.12731/2022 titled Jitendra Khare and others vs. The State of M.P. and others, the writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn with leave of the Court and liberty was given to the petitioners therein to approach the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer within seven days along with an application for stay of the order of the Tehsildar. It was also directed that if the appeal is preferred within the stipulated period, the authority shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law at the earliest by passing a speaking order.

The main thrust of arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Tehsildar, while passing the orders dated 30.05.2022 and 31.05.2022 (Annexure-P/7), did not hear the petitioners at all. The Tehsildar passed the aforesaid orders while exercising the powers under Section 248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity, 'Code'), and passed an order of ejectment of the petitioners, which according to the petitioners was without hearing them. The orders passed under Section 248 of the Code is not appealable in second appeal in view of Section 46(b) of the Code. Section 46 of the original Code has been substituted by the M.P. Act, 23 w.e.f. 25.09.2018 and the orders passed under Section 248 of the Code by the Appellate Court is not appealable in second appeal.

In compliance of the order dated 07.07.2022, the petitioners filed their first statutory appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer/Respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.01.2024 by passing the following order which is reproduced here as under in vernacular :-

30-01-2024 izdj.k izLrqrA vihykFkhZ vf/koDrk mifLFkrA vihyk/khu izdj.k rych gsrq fu;r gSA vkns'k izfr laKku gksus ls izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;kA vihykFkhZ dks le{k esa lquk x;kA vihykFkhZ x.k }kjk vfHkdFku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds izdj.k Øekad 35@A68@2021 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukd 30-05-2022 ds fo:) vihy izLrqr dh xbZ gSA D;ksafd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; rglhynkj NRrjiqj us lafgrk dh /kkjk 248 ds v/khu 'kklu dh Hkwfe dh lqj{kk dh n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fof/klEer csn[kyh dj vFkZn.M vkjksih dh dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gS] tks glr{ksi ;ksX; u gksus ls vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS ;sA i{k lwfpr gksA vkns'k izfr vihyk/khu U;k;ky; dks Hksth tkosA okn dk;Zokgh izdj.k ulrhc) gksdj nk-n-gksA A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the Sub-Divisional Officer/Respondent No.4 has not passed any reasoned/speaking order and has merely endorsed the orders passed by the Tehsildar on the premise that the Tehsildar has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 248 of Code in order to preserve the land of the State and the orders are not to be interfered with. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/Respondent No.4 is patently erroneous inasmuch as that the Appellate Authority is under legal obligation to pass a detailed reasoned and speaking order. The First Appellate Court is duty bound to discuss the facts of the case viz-a-viz the ground taken by the petitioners, particularly when the order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the High Court in W.P. No.12731/2022 has directed the respondent no.4 to pass a speaking order. The impugned order is found to be erroneous on its face value being patently non-speaking. The issuance of notice and calling for response would further delay the disposal of the case, as this Court is fully convinced that the impugned order is totally sketchy besides being non-speaking and deserves to be set aside on its face value.

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of. The case is again remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who shall pass a speaking order in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy