IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI nd ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 WRIT PETITION No. 15012 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

VIKRAM SINGH S/O HEMSINGH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER VILLAGE SAGDOD, TEHSIL DEPALPUR, DISTT.-INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (SHRI DEEPTANSHU SHUKLA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER).

AND

1. MOHAN SINGH S/O KESAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT

40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: R/O FARMER VILLAGE SAGDOD, TEHSIL DEPALPUR, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE ADDL. COLLECTOR, INDORE DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEPALPUR DIVISION, (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. THE NAYAB TEHSILDAR, DEPALPUR TEHSIL, DIVISION (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT).

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

ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

In this petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.07.2021 passed in case No.

Signature Not Verified

10/nigrani/2020-21 by the Additional Collector, Indore/respondent No.2 whereby revision application under Section 50 read with Section 32 of the MP Land Revenue Code 1959 (hereinafter referred to as MPLRC) has been rejected on the ground that second appeal is maintainable.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 131 of the MPLRC in respect of access to his land bearing Survey No. 717 admeasuring 1.120 hectare be permitted. The Naib Tehsildar simply on the basis of the objection raised by a stranger to the litigation, rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner was unable to prove that the blocked pathway was his traditional pathway. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a first appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 44 of the MPLRC. The SDO vide order dated 05.02.2019 dismissed the first appeal maintaining the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 50 r/w 32 of the MPLRC. Vide the impugned order dated 13.07.2021, the Additional Collector dismissed the revision on the ground that second appeal is maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Collector had committed an error of law in rejecting the revision in as much as no second appeal lies under Section 44 of the MPLRC. As per Section 46(b) of the MPLRC, no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in first appeal against an order passed under the provisions of sub- section (1) of section 131.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has not disputed the legal opposition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. As per fact that no second appeal lies as per Section 46 (b) of the MPLRC against an order passed under Section 131, only revision under Signature Not Verified Section 50 of the MPLRC is maintainable. In view of the legal position, the Additional Collector had committed an error in rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure A/1) is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector, Indore/respondent No.2 to decide the revision Case No. 10/nigrani/2020-21 afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8. The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

No order as to cost.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)

JUDGE vidya Signature Not Verified