IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

rd

ON THE 3 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 2614 of 2026 NITIN Versus DINESH KUMAR RAWAT AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Shyam Yadav - Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the respondent No.3-Additional Commissioner Sagar Division Sagar (M.P.) whereby the appeal preferred by the private respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 has been allowed on the ground that the second appeal is pending adjudication before this Court.

2. It is a case of the petitioner that he purchased property from private respondents situated at Village Hardwani Tahsil Banda District Sagar having Patwari Halka No. 46 area 0.88 hectare by registered sale deed dated 14.10.2005. The private respondents have filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 400002A of 2011 against the petitioner's brother namely Sachin and the trial Court dismissed the suit on 10.02.2022, against which a regular civil appeal under Section 96 of CPC being RCA No.05 of 2022 was filed before the District Judge Banda District Sagar including not only the present land but other lands also which have been sold to petitioner's brother Sachin Jain and his father Kamal Kumar Jain. The regular civil appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.05.2024. After dismissal of the civil appeal, an application under Section 110 of the MPLRC was filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name in the revenue records. The said application was dismissed by the Tahsildar vide order dated 17.12.2024 observing that the second appeal being SA No. 1827 of 2024 (Dinesh Kumar and others vs Sachin and others) is pending before this Court against the judgment dated 28.05.2024. Being aggrieved by the order of Tahsildar, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 44(1) of MPLRC before the Sub-Divisional Officer Banda District Sagar who allowed the appeal vide order dated 17.10.2025 and directed that the name of petitioner be recorded in the revenue records. However, the order of Sub-Divisional-Officer was challenged by private respondents by filing a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner who vide order dated 07.01.2026 allowed the appeal holding that the Second Appeal is pending before this Court; therefore, till the appeal is decided, the petitioner is having no right to get his name mutated in the revenue records.

3. It is submitted that the private respondents have lost their case before the trial Court as well as in the first appellate Court. No notices are issued in the second appeal. There is no interim order passed by this Court in the pending second appeal. It is still to be argued on the question of admission. The appeal was filed in the year 2024 and till date no efforts have been made by the respondents to get the same listed. Merely on the basis of pendency of the second appeal, no right is created or accrued in favour of the private respondents. The aforesaid aspect was never considered by the Additional Commissioner while passing the impugned order.

4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjiv Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar and others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 63 wherein it is held that unless the appeal is listed and there is an interim order, the mere filing of the appeal would not operate as a stay. It is submitted that the authorities are at liberty to proceed in the matter. Therefore, he seeks indulgence in the matter.

5. Per contra, counsel appearing for the private respondents No.1 and 2 has supported the impugned order and has argued that the second appeal is pending adjudication before this Court. He has submitted that the second appeal being pending adjudication will create a rider to the revenue authorities to record the name of petitioner in the r