IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI nd ON THE 2 OF MAY, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 4115 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

1. DHARAMRAJ GUPTA S/O LATE CHHOTELAL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

CULTIVATION R/O KUCHWAHI, TAHSIL BAHRI, DISTT. SIDHI (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. PUSHPENDRA KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE CHHOTELAL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CULTIVATION R/O KUCHWAHI TAHSIL BAHRI DISTRICT SIDHI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. CHANDRAMANI GUPTA S/O LATE CHHOTELAL GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

CULTIVATION R/O KUCHWAHI TAHSIL BAHRI DISTRICT SIDHI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SHAILENDRA VERMA - ADVOCATE )

AND

1. MULCHANDRA GUPTA S/O LATE VASUDEV GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

CULTIVATION R/O KUCHWAHI, TAHSIL BAHRI, DISTT. SIDHI (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE COMMISSIONER REWA REWA DIVISION REWA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (REVENUE) TAHSIL SIHAWAL DISTRICT SIDHI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. TAHSILDAR TAHSIL BAHRI DISTRICT SIDHI M.P.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS Signature Not Verified (BY SHRI VIKRAM SINGH CHOUDHARY - PANEL LAWYER)

(SHRI B.P. PATHAK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 )

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

ORDER

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking setting aside of order dated 29.08.2022 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the Commissioner, Division Rewa in RCMS Case No.0547/Appeal/2021-22.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondent no.1 filed an application under Sections 250, 250(3) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Tahsildar wherein respondent no.1 had claimed the ownership in respect of land situated on Khasra No.353 and Khasra No.444/1 admeasuring area 0.108 hectares in village Kuchwahi Tahsil Bahri District Sidhi. The said application was allowed by the Tahsildar by passing an order dated 26.12.2020 (Annexure-P/1). The order passed by the Tahsildar was assailed by the present petitioner by filing an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer, vide order dated 10.02.2021 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed another appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Division Rewa and the same has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.08.2022 (Annexure-P/3).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the Revenue Authority was required to appreciate that in respect of property in question i.e. situated on Khasra No.353 and Khasra No.444, a suit by one Smt. Nevsua, wife of Late Shri Jaganaath Gupta and Krishna Gopal son of Late Shri Jaganath Gupta has been filed in which, the respondent no.1 is impleaded as defendant and in the said civil suit, an order of temporary injunction dated 29.11.2018 has been passed by which, the defendants have been restrained Signature Not Verified from raising any construction on the property in question.

4. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that there is another suit by the same plaintiff in which, not only the respondent no.1 but the present petitioner is also impleaded as defendant no.62. The said civil suit also pertains to the same Khasra numbers filed under Section 38 of The Specific Reliefs Act, 1963. Therefore, the pendency of the aforesaid suit as well as passing of the order under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 was required to be considered by the Revenue Authority but the Revenue Authority in ignorance of the same proceeded to pass an order on application filed by the respondent under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the application under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code has been brought on record along with an application for taking additional documents on record filed vide IA No.13183/2022.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the application filed under Sections 250, 250(3) and 32 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code by respond