Revisional authority retains jurisdiction despite omitting relevant provisions, allowing petitions to challenge final orders.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT th ON THE 19 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 4158 of 2025 SAGAR VIJAYVHARIGIYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sachin Yadav, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Mukund Agrawal, G.A for the respondents No. 1 to 4/State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.825/Appeal/2024- 2025, whereby the revision submitted by the petitioner against the order dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector in Case No.0070/Appeal/AC/2024-2025 has been dismissed. The appeal filed against the order of assessment under section 59 of the MPLRC (Annexure A-4) was dismissed on the ground of delay by the Collector vide order dated

24.09.2024 (Annexure P/5).

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), the revisional authority has dismissed the revision on the ground that the provision of section 172 has been omitted in MPLRC , 1959, therefore, there is no provision of appeal and Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ KUMAR revision under the Code and the petitioner ought to have challenged the impugned order before the competent court. It has also been alleged that the revisional authority has no jurisdiction under section 172 after omission of the said provision from the MPLRC .

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. It is evident from the impugned order that the authority has denied to exercise the revisional jurisdiction on the ground that the authority is not having power to exercise the revisional powers as prescribed under section 50 of the MPLRC as the provision of section 172 of MPLRC has been omitted.

5. From a bare perusal of the provision of section 50 MPLRC show that there is no bar to entertain the revision against the order impugned herein passed by the Collector. The provision of section 172 MPLRC has been omitted in the year 2018. The order of assessment of land revenue/ diversion has been passed in the year 2021 (Annex.P/4), therefore, in the considered opinion of this court the authority has lost sight of the provision of law that the diversion has been done in the year 2021 by reassessing the land revenue under section 59 MPLRC . The said order was challenged by filing an appeal under section 44 MPLRC which was dismissed on the ground of delay vide Annexure P/5 by the Collector. As such, the order was challenged under section 50 of the Code before the Commissioner. The order passed by the Collector was final in nature. Section 50 (b) of MPLRC provides that on an application made by any party, the revisional authority can call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which order has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ KUMAR passed under this Code, herein by the Collector.

6. From the above analysis, it is demystified that the order passed by the Collector vide Annexure P/5 in appeal was final order and, therefore, the revision against the said order was maintainable. There is no bar shown by the counsel for the State under the Code in respect of restraining the authority to exercise its revisional power against the order passed by the Collector. The learned counsel for the State also could not point out any provision under section 59 MPLRC under which assessment has been made vide Annexure P/4 that the such assessment, if challenged in appeal, revision is not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed under section 44 of the MPLRC , 1959, therefore, the appellate order could be challenged before revisional authority.

7. On the above set of facts and analysis, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dat