IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 3 rd OF NOVEMBER, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 4141 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

SITASHARAN PRASAD PATEL S/O RAMSWAROOP PATEL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM MEMUDPUR TEHSIL SIRMAUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY MS. SANJANA SAHNI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. RAMAYAN PRASAD PATEL S/O SUDAMA PRASAD PATEL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM MEMUDPUR TEHSIL SIRMAUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. CHHOTELAL PATEL S/O SUDAMA PRASAD PATEL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM MEMUDPUR TEHSIL SIRMAUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. CHANDRABHAN PATEL S/O JAMUNA PRASAD PATEL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM MEMUDPUR TEHSIL SIRMAUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. LOKNATH PRASAD PATEL S/O JAMUNA PRASAD PATEL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O GRAM MEMUDPUR TEHSIL SIRMAUR DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI RAVENDRA SHUKLA - ADVOCATE )

………………………………………………………………………………………

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

O R D E R

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in Revision No.480/Revision/06-07, by which the revision filed by respondents no.1 to 3 has been allowed.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition in short are that the undisputed facts are that the parties are close relatives and are members of the same family. The petitioner claims himself to be an owner of Khasra No.1845, area 1.56 acres, situated in Village Memudpur, Tahsil Mangawan, District Rewa. In 2005, the petitioner filed an application under section 107 of M.P.Land Revenue Code before Tahsildar, Tahsil Sirmaur, Circle Baikunthpur, District Rewa for correction of revenue map. A report from Revenue Inspector, Baikunthpur was called. Accordingly, the Revenue Inspector directed the Patwari Halka of Memudpur 65 for preparing a spot inspection report. Notices were issued to all interested persons and according to the petitioner, even to the respondents. It is the case of petitioner that respondents no.1 and 2 refused to sign on the notices where respondent no.3 signed the notice thereby acknowledging the receipt of same. However, it is the claim of petitioner that all responders were present on the spot at the time when inspection was done by Halka Patwari. Spot inspection was done on 25.05.2005 in presence of petitioner and respondents but according to petitioner they refused to sign on Panchanama. The Halka Patwari prepared his report and also prepared a proposed map as per possession of the parties and forwarded the same to the Tahsildar through Revenue Inspector. By order dated 20.07.2005 the Tahsildar observed that no objection to the proposal for correction of revenue map has been received and accordingly, approved the proposed map correction.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent nos.1 to 3 preferred a revision before Additional Collector, District Rewa, which was dismissed by him by order dated 21.09.2006 with an observation that it was respondents no.1 to 3, who did not participate in the spot inspection proceedings.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Additional Collector, District Rewa, respondents no.1 to 3 preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner, District Rewa, who by impugned order dated 12.07.2019 has allowed the same and the orders passed by Tahasildar as well as Additional Collector have been set aside.

5. Apart from other grounds, one of the grounds for reversal of the orders passed by Tahsildar and Additional Collector was that neither respondents no.1 to 3 were impleaded as party nor notices were issued to them and even their objections were not considered.

6. Challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, it is submitt