IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI st ON THE 1 OF APRIL, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 2059 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

1. GANGA PRASAD TIWARI S/O RAMKUMAR TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE SURSA,TAHSIL RAIPURKARCHULIAN, DISTT. REWA (M.P.)

(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. RAVENDRA KUMAR S/O RAMKUMAR TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE SURSA TAH.

RAIPURKARCHULIAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. BRAJENDRA KUMAR S/O RAMKUMAR TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE SURSA TAH.

RAIPURKARCHULIAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SHREEVENDRA KUMAR S/O RAMKUMAR TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE SURSA TAH.

RAIPURKARCHULIAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI RAMSUPHAL CHATURVEDI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. YOGENDRA S/O LATE BRAJ KUMAR R/O VILLAGE SURSA, TAHSIL RAIPURKARCHULIAN, DISTT.

REWA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. SUSHIL KUMAR S/O LATE BRAJ KUMAR VILLAGE SURSA TAH. RAIPURKARCHULIAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. DILEEP KUMAR S/O LATE BRAJ KUMAR VILLAGE SURSA TAH. RAIPURKARCHULIAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified

4. LALITA DEVI W/O LATE JAMUNA PRASAD VILLAGE SURSA TAH. RAIPURKARCHULIAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. AMRITESH KUMAR S/O LATE JAMUNA PRASAD VILLAGE SURSA TAH. RAIPURKARCHULIAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SUMAN DEVI D/O LATE JAMUNA PRASAD VILLAGE SURSA TAH. RAIPURKARCHULIAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. SUSHAMA DEVI D/O LATE JAMUNA PRASAD VILLAGE SURSA TAH. RAIPURKARCHULIAN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SACHIN SINGH YADAV - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) This petition coming on for admission, this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 31.05.2021, by which the Additional Collector has dismissed a Revision preferred by the petitioner, against an order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Raipurkarchuliyan, District Rewa.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents herein moved an application seeking "Naksha Tarmin" (correction of map) under Section 107 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Sub Divisional Officer. The said application was not maintainable in as much as, the procedure for correction of maps is provided under Section 115 and in terms of Section 115, the Sub Divisional Officer is entrusted with the power to conduct an enquiry as regards the prayer for correction of map and is also obliged to requisition a written report from the Tahsildaar. It is also contended by the learned counsel that if the correction of an entry, pertaining to a period prior to 5 years is being Signature Not Verified sought, there has to be proper sanction by the Collector. Ignoring all these aspects of the matter which are provided under Section 115 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, the Sub Divisional Officer ventured upon to deal with the respondents application filed under Section 107 of M.P. Land Revenue Code and has passed an Order of "Nakhsa Tarmin" which is unsustainable, having been passed in gross violation of the provisions as laid down in Section 115 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the extension of opportunity of hearing to all parties interested is sine qua non and, the said statutory requirement cannot be dispensed with by the Sub Divisional Officer. Therefore, submit that the impugned orders contained in P-3 and P-4 are unsustainable.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submit that the Sub Divisional Officer while extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has passed an order of "Naksha Tarmin" which has not been interfered with by the Additional Collector in a revision which was preferred at the behest of the petitioner. Learned counsel however, does not dispute that in terms of Section 115, the proceedings were not undertaken by the Sub Divisional Officer in as much as, neither any written report from Tahsildaar was requisitioned nor proper sanction from the Collector