IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA st ON THE 1 OF JULY, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 841 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

SAJJANSINGH S/O PARVATSINGH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, VILLAGE - DUNGER KHEDI, TEHSIL MAHIDPUR, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI ANIRUDH SAXENA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. JUJARSINGH S/O PARVATSINGH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, VILLAGE - DUNGER KHEDI, TEHSIL MAHIDPUR, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, UJJAIN, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MAHIDAPUR, DISTRICT UJJAIN. (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. TEHSILDAR, MAHIDPUR, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS ( RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI BRIJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA - ADVOCATE AND RESPONDENT NO.4/STATE BY MS. GEETANJALI CHAURASIA -

GOVT. ADVOCATE)

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

ORDER

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ

2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain affirming the order dated 08.01.2020 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Mahidpur, District Ujjain whereby the order dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Mahidpur, District Ujjain had been set aside and the application under Section 250 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 filed by respondent No.1 had been allowed.

3. Though there have been various proceedings between the parties before the Revenue Courts but for the purpose of decision of the present petition they need not be referred to in detail. Suffice is to state that respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 before the Nayab Tehsildar. During pendency of those proceedings a civil suit came to be filed before the Civil Court taking cognizance of which by order dated 15.10.2019 the Nayab Tehsildar closed the proceedings observing that after decision of the civil suit fresh application be filed by respondent No.1. The application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 was not decided by him on merits.

4. In appeal preferred by respondent No.1 the Sub Divisional Officer proceeded to decide the application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 on merits and allowed the same. The said order has been maintained in appeal preferred by the petitioner.

5. In my opinion since the application had not been decided by the Nayab Tehsildar on merits, the Sub Divisional Officer was enjoined to firstly consider as to whether the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar was proper or not. In case he was of the opinion that the Nayab Tehsildar ought to have Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ decided the matter on merits, then he ought to have remanded the matter back to him for decision on merits. However the same has not been done by him. There is no consideration in his order as to whether the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar is correct or not or whether the proceedings ought to have been decided on merits by him. The same is the order passed by the Additional Commissioner also.

6. Thus in view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as the Sub Divisional Officer cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer to firstly decided as to whether the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar is correct or not and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law and in view of observations made hereinabove.

7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed and disposed off.

(PRANAY VERMA)

JUDGE ns Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ