IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR th ON THE 16 OF MAY, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 1872 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

GAJRAJ S/O LAXMINARAYAN MALI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST

1.

KHATYAKHEDI, TAHSIL MALHARGARH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) MADANLAL S/O LAXMINARAYAN MALI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST

2.

KHATYAKHEDI, TAHSIL MALHARGARH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) SALAGRAM S/O ONKARLAL MALI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST

3.

KHATYAKHEDI, TAHSIL MALHARGARH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) PREMCHANDRA S/O SUNDARLAL MALI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST

4.

KHATYAKHEDI, TAHSIL MALHARGARH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) RAJESH S/O SUNDARLAL MALI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST

5.

KHATYAKHEDI, TAHSIL MALHARGARH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) DILIP S/O DHANNALAL MALI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST

6.

KHATYAKHEDI, TAHSIL MALHARGARH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH) AMARCHANDRA S/O DHANNALAL MALI OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST

7.

KHATYAKHEDI, TAHSIL MALHARGARH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI NITIN PHADKE, ADVOCATE)

AND Signature Not Verified ASHWIN KUMAR S/O ASHOK JAIN

1. PIPLYMANDI TEH. MALHARGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

SMT. TRISHALA W/O ASHOK KUMAR JAIN PIPLIYAMANDI, TAHSIL MALHARGARH, 2.

DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

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

ORDER

1] This misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 31/03/2021 passed by the Additional Collector, Mandsaur in Revision No.68/2020-21 whereby the order passed by the Tehsildar Malhargarh, District Mandsaur in case No.16/A-13/2019-20 dated 15/01/2021 has been affirmed, and the application filed by respondents for stay and dismissal of the proceedings on account of pending of civil suit has been rejected.

2] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners hold a land at village Piplyapanth, Tehsil Malhargarh, District Mandsaur and adjacent to the petitioners’ land, the land of respondents is situated. The petitioners filed an application under Section 131, 132 and 134 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for demarcation of their land and in the aforesaid proceedings, the application was filed by the respondents that since a civil suit No.18-A/2020 is already pending between the parties in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Signature Not Verified Narayangarh, District Mandsaur, hence, the proceedings before the Tehsildar is not maintainable. The application has been rejected and it is directed by the Tehsildar that the proceedings shall continue. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondents in a revision under Section 50 of the Land Revenue Code before the Additional Collector, Mandsaur, who, vide its order dated 31/03/2021 has allowed the revision holding that since in the civil Court also, the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated, no purpose would be served to allow a parallel proceeding to continue before the Tehsildar under Section 133 of the Code of 1959. The reliance has also been placed on Section 275 of M.P. Land Revenue Code and Section 10 of CPC which relates to stay.

3] Shri Nitin Phadke, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law, hence, liable to be quashed. Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 257 of the Code of 1959 which provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authorities and that no civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the matters contained therein. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 131 of the Code are not mentioned under Section 257 and thus, the civil Court shall not have jurisdiction to exercise its powers. It is also submitted that otherwise also, the aforesaid section is in respect of jurisdiction of the civil Court pertaining to certain provisions of MPLRC, and if the proceedings are pending in the revenue Court as provided un