1. A petition challenged the rejection of an application for stay in revenue proceedings under the Land Revenue Code, alleging the order lacked reasoning. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 123277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J
Mashruf Khan – Appellant
Versus
Rehana Bee – Respondent
MISC. PETITION No. 6522 of 2026 | CNR No.: MPHC020420422026
Important Points
An order deciding an application for interim relief under Section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code must be a reasoned order based on prima facie findings; a summary rejection without reasons is impermissible.
Subject
Civil - Land Revenue
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Administrative Law - Reasoned Orders - An order deciding an application for interim relief under Section 52 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code must be a reasoned order based on prima facie findings; a summary one-line rejection without assigning reasons is unsustainable and legally impermissible. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether a non-reasoned one-line order rejecting an application for stay under Section 52 of the MP Land Revenue Code is legally sustainable.
Issues: Whether a non-reasoned one-line order rejecting an application for stay under Section 52 of the MP Land Revenue Code is legally sustainable.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kapil Sharma
For the Respondents:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kapil Sharma
For the Respondents:
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contended that the rejection order was non-speaking and failed to consider prima facie evidence, including a family settlement deed supporting the mutation. (Para 4 )
3. The court observed that an order deciding an application for interim relief must be a reasoned order addressing the prima facie contentions raised. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. An appellate authority is legally mandated to provide a reasoned order when deciding applications for interim relief in revenue matters. (Para 6 )
5. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted back to the second appellate authority for a fresh, reasoned decision on the stay application. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. What is the requirement for a valid judicial order deciding an application for interim relief?
A judicial order deciding an application for interim relief must be pregnant with reasons and must, at a minimum, contain prima facie findings addressing the contentions raised by the parties. (Para 6 )
7. Is an order rejecting an application for stay valid if it merely states that arguments were not satisfactory?
No. An order which rejects an application without dealing with any of the contentions raised or providing prima facie findings is legally unsustainable and cannot be termed a reasoned order. (Para 4 , 6 )
ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 7.10.2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioners in terms of Section 52 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code has been rejected by one line order without assigning any reason.
2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners and respondents are family members. They held the joint family property situated in Kasba Ratlam at survey No. 235-1.7200 hectare, village Sirukhedi at survey No. 110/1-2.190 hectare, 110/2-2.190 hectare, 1301-1.200 hectare and 130/4-1.900 hectare.
3. Both the parties had executed family settlement deed dated 6.2.2026 before Notary, pursuant to which proceedings were instituted before the Tehsildar who after issuing notice in terms of Section 178 of MP Land Revenue Code made Fard Batankan and prepared Naksha accordingly while passing the mutation order dated 2.2.2026. However the said order was challenged by the respondents before SDO which was allowed by SDO vide order dated 15.9.2026 in Case No. 22/Appeal/2026-27. The petitioners being aggrieved by second appeal No. 592/appeal-2025-26 in terms of Section 44(2) of MP Land Revenue Code alongwith said application under Section 52 of MP Land Revenue Code was also filed for stay on the order passed by SDO. The said application of Section 52 of MP Land Revenue Code has been decided by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application has been decided by merely observing that the arguments on the application are not satisfactory without dealing with any of the contention raised by the petitioners and without any prima facie findings with respect to those contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners before the second appellate authority was that a joint family settlement deed was executed and Tehsildar after instituting the proceedings under Section 178 of MP Land Revenue Code not only issued notices and invited objections but also granted sufficient opportunity to all the members of the family to record their objections and it is only when none of the family members raised any objection, the Fard Batankan was done and the order of mutation was accordingly passed. He submits that all these contentions were raised and prima facie case was established before the Commissioner in the second appeal. He submits that infact against the settlement deed, the civil suit was filed by some of the respondents in which an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed which was rejected by order dated 16.7.2026. He submits that all these facts were raised before the authority however, the authority did not advert to the same and by merely one line the application has been rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
6. A perusal of the impugned order would show that after recording the contention in para 2, the appellate authority in para 3 has simply mentioned that appeal is admitted for hearing and then observed heard on the question of stay and as the arguments were not found satisfactory, the application is rejected. This order cannot be termed as a reasoned order by any stretch of imagination. In an application filed under Section 52 of MP Land Revenue Code, when the petitioners have raised contentions for grant of interim relief, the order deciding said application must be pregnant with reasons on prima facie basis. In the present case the same is completely absent, as such the impugned order dated 07.10.2026 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the second appellate authority to decide the application of the petitioners filed under Section 52 of MP Land Revenue Code afresh.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the Misc. Petition stands disposed off.
