The court emphasized the finality of administrative orders and the necessity for proper challenge procedures under the applicable land revenue laws.

ORDER

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

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 12/09/2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, whereby, the second appeal preferred by the respondent against the order dated 04/03/2020 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Radhogarh, District Guna has been allowed.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the respondent herein moved an application under section 250 of MPLRC before the Tehsildar, Maksudangarh, District Guna seeking dispossession of the petitioners from part of the land bearing survey No.84/1/1B situated at village Godhiya, which was alleged to be under encroachment of the petitioners over area admeasuring 0.627 hectares.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY The said application filed by the respondent came to be allowed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 02/11/2019. The order dated 02/11/2019 was thereafter challenged by the petitioners in first appeal under section 44 of MPLRC before the Sub Divisional Officer, Radhogarh, District Guna which came to be allowed vide order dated 04/03/2020, whereby, order dated 02/11/2019 passed by the Tehsildar was set aside. The respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 04/03/2020 preferred a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, which has been allowed vide order dated 12/09/2023 which is impugned in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier in respect of the same land respondent moved an application under section 250 of MPLRC before the Tehsildar, Maksudangarh which came to be rejected vide order dated 06/02/2019 (Annexure P/4) and once an application under section 250 of MPLRC filed by the respondent stood rejected, the second application filed by the respondent for the same cause of action was not maintainable. He further submits that order dated 02/11/2019 was passed by the Tehsildar based upon demarcation report to which petitioners were not noticed and, therefore, the said demarcation could not have formed basis for passing of the order of dispossession against the petitioners. The aforesaid aspect was rightly considered by the first appellate authority i.e Sub Divisinal Officer and therefore, first appeal was allowed vide order dated 04/03/2020 which order ought not to have been interfered with by the second Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY appellate authority by passing the impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that the civil suit came to be filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners bearing civil suit No. 46-A/2010 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23/12/2011, wherein finding was recorded by the learned trial court that the petitioners herein have failed to prove their ownership or possession over the land possessed by them. In view whereof, the order of dispossession could not have been passed. Accordingly, he prays for quashment of the order dated 12/09/2023.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that order dated 23/12/2011 passed in civil suit No. 46-A/2010 was assailed in a regular first appeal before the 8th Additional District Judge, Guna which was disposed of vide order dated 12/04/2018 and liberty was granted to the petitioners as well as respondent to seek remedy under section 250 of MPLRC and, therefore, judgment and decree dated 23/12/2011 was no impediment on the right of the respondent. He further submits that while rejecting the earlier proceedings under section 250 of MPLRC vide order dated 06/02/2019 (Annexure P/4), the Tehsildar himself granted libert