Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
No second appeal lies against orders passed by Tehsildar under Section 131 of MPLRC, as per Section 46-B of MPLRC. The remedy available to aggrieved parties is revision under Section 50 of MPLRC ["Lakshminarayan vs Satish Choudhary - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kanhaiyalal vs Tulsiram - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Bagdiram vs Upper Collector - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Bagdiram vs Upper Collector - Madhya Pradesh"].
The revision process is confined to the party to the lis, and the High Court generally does not entertain approaching the High Court directly for orders given by revenue authorities under Section 131, unless there is a specific legal violation or jurisdictional error ["Lakshminarayan vs Satish Choudhary - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kanhaiyalal vs Tulsiram - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Bagdiram vs Upper Collector - Madhya Pradesh"].
Section 46-B explicitly states that no second appeal shall lie from an order passed in first appeal against an order under Section 131, and the proper remedy is revision under Section 50 ["Lakshminarayan vs Satish Choudhary - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kanhaiyalal vs Tulsiram - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Bagdiram vs Upper Collector - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Bagdiram vs Upper Collector - Madhya Pradesh"].
Courts have clarified that if an order has been passed by the Tehsildar under Section 131, the aggrieved party must pursue revision before the Collector or higher revenue authorities, and approaching the High Court directly is generally not permissible unless procedural or jurisdictional errors are involved ["Lakshminarayan vs Satish Choudhary - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kanhaiyalal vs Tulsiram - Madhya Pradesh"].
The cases also emphasize that the remedy of revision is efficacious and available, and the courts have consistently held that High Courts should not interfere unless there is a clear violation of law or jurisdiction ["Lakshminarayan vs Satish Choudhary - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kanhaiyalal vs Tulsiram - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Bagdiram vs Upper Collector - Madhya Pradesh"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Approaching the High Court directly for an order given by the Collector under revision for orders under Section 131 of MPLRC is generally not permissible. The statutory provisions, especially Section 46-B, restrict second appeals and direct High Court intervention, confining the remedy to revision before the appropriate revenue authorities. Therefore, a party aggrieved by such orders should pursue revision under Section 50 of MPLRC before the Collector or higher revenue authorities, rather than filing a writ petition or appeal directly in the High Court ["Lakshminarayan vs Satish Choudhary - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Kanhaiyalal vs Tulsiram - Madhya Pradesh"].
Land disputes in Madhya Pradesh, particularly those involving rights of way and easements, often lead to orders from revenue authorities like the Tahsildar, SDO, and Collector. A common question arises: can we approach the High Court for an order given by the Collector in revision for an order under Section 131 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC)? If you're facing such an order that affects your property rights, understanding your legal remedies is crucial. This post breaks down the options, drawing from key legal principles and case precedents, to help you navigate this complex area.
While this information is based on established legal findings, it is for educational purposes only. Always consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your situation.
Section 131 of the MPLRC deals with Rights of way and other private rights. It empowers revenue officers, starting from the Tahsildar, to determine disputes over customary rights like access paths (paramparagat rasta) based on local customs and prior usage. For proper appreciation, Section 131 of the MPLRC, 1959 is reproduced below: Section 131 — Rights of way and other private rights 1. ... Radheshyam vs Leelabai - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9469
These proceedings are typically initiated by an application under Section 131, as seen in cases where petitioners assert rights of access to private land. It is the case of petitioner is that the petitioner had filed an application before the Tahsildar under Section 131 MPLRC, which relates to the right of way in private easement by asserting his right of access to the private land of respondents. Sheshrao vs Madhorao - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 8738
Orders under this section are administrative or quasi-judicial in nature but do not conclusively bar civil remedies. Importantly, Section 131(2) explicitly states that no such order shall prevent a person from establishing their rights through a civil suit. Hradesh Kumar VS Mithlesh Kumar - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 652
Revenue orders under Section 131 often go through appeals and revisions within the departmental hierarchy. No second appeal lies against an order under Section 131; only revision under Section 50 of MPLRC is maintainable. As per fact that no second appeal lies as per Section 46 (b) of the MPLRC against an order passed under Section 131, only revision under Signature Not Verified Section 50 of the MPLRC is maintainable. Vikram Singh vs Mohan Singh - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 25222
The Collector, acting in revision under Section 50 read with Section 32, reviews the legality and propriety of lower orders. For instance, revisions have been filed against SDO orders, only to be dismissed if not maintainable as second appeals. However, it is submitted by Shri Dubey that against an order passed in first appeal out of the proceedings under Section 131 of MPLRC, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a revision. Lokesh vs Sushila Bai Vishnoi - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 12414
Once affirmed by the Collector (or Additional Collector), the order gains presumptive validity, but this does not end the road for aggrieved parties. Hradesh Kumar VS Mithlesh Kumar - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 652
Yes, you may approach the High Court to challenge a Collector's revision order under Section 131 MPLRC. The main options include:
High Courts have wide powers under Article 226 for judicial review of revenue orders. These orders are amenable to scrutiny for legality, jurisdiction, procedural correctness, or violations of natural justice. Orders passed by revenue authorities under Section 131 of MPLRC are subject to judicial review in the High Court. Hradesh Kumar VS Mithlesh Kumar - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 652
Grounds for a writ petition (typically certiorari or mandamus) include:- Lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional error.- Violation of principles of natural justice (e.g., no hearing opportunity). Learned Revisional Court has erred in law in allowing revision preferred by the respondents without properly appreciating the facts of the case and without appreciating the provision of section 131 of the MPLRC... Ranjana vs Subhash - 2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5417- Manifest errors of law or arbitrariness.
The High Court examines if the authority acted within its powers and followed due process, without re-appreciating facts unless grossly erroneous. The High Court can examine whether the order was passed within the jurisdiction of the authority, based on the facts and the law, and whether the principles of natural justice were followed. Hradesh Kumar VS Mithlesh Kumar - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 652
Section 131(2) MPLRC preserves the right to a civil suit. Aggrieved parties can sue to establish easementary rights or challenge the order's validity, especially if it obstructs customary ways. This is independent of writ remedies and suitable for factual disputes. Since Section 131(2) of MPLRC explicitly states that no order shall debar a person from establishing rights by civil suit... Hradesh Kumar VS Mithlesh Kumar - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 652
Cases involving public nistar or abadi land encroachments highlight that even without formal setting apart under Section 237 MPLRC, suits for injunction succeed if alternative ways exist. Triveni Bai VS Mata Prasad - 2013 Supreme(MP) 615
High Courts generally avoid interfering with factual findings unless arbitrary. Orders affirmed through multiple levels carry weight but fall if procedurally flawed. Hradesh Kumar VS Mithlesh Kumar - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 652
Judicial precedents emphasize fairness:- In one matter, a revision dismissal was challenged for procedural lapses. Aggrieved by the said order of the SDO, the petitioner preferred a revision application under section 50 of MPLRC, 1959. Vide order dated 28.1.2019... the Collector dismissed the revision... Shivraj Bahadur Singh VS Collector, Sidhi - 2022 Supreme(MP) 111- Natural justice violations vitiate proceedings: No hearing to interested parties invalidates orders. (1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 (M. P.) -- S.115 -- scope of powers -- interested person not made party -- order passed against him without providing him opportunity of hearing -- entire proceeding vitiated... Shivraj Bahadur Singh VS Collector, Sidhi - 2022 Supreme(MP) 111- Auction cancellations without notice breach Section 51. Similar logic applies to Section 131 revisions. Siddharth Dev Singh VS State of M. P. - 2018 Supreme(MP) 834
Analogous cases under other laws reinforce that administrative orders are reviewable. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION TRAINING AND SEARCH INSTITUTE VS P. B. B. NARASIMHA RAO - 2006 Supreme(AP) 838
Challenging a Collector's revision order under Section 131 MPLRC in the High Court is feasible, primarily via Article 226 writs or civil suits. While departmental remedies like revisions under Section 50 must often be exhausted, judicial review ensures accountability for jurisdictional overreach or procedural unfairness.
Key Takeaways:- Writ petitions target legal/procedural flaws; civil suits establish substantive rights.- Natural justice is paramount—lack of hearing can quash orders.- Reference cases like those affirming judicial scrutiny. Hradesh Kumar VS Mithlesh Kumar - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 652
This overview highlights general pathways in Madhya Pradesh land revenue disputes. For personalized guidance, engage a local advocate specializing in revenue laws.
References: Analysis based on provided legal documents including Hradesh Kumar VS Mithlesh Kumar - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 652, Sheshrao vs Madhorao - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 8738, Vikram Singh vs Mohan Singh - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 25222, Radheshyam vs Leelabai - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9469, Ranjana vs Subhash - 2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5417, Devchand vs Chandarlal - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6317, Lokesh vs Sushila Bai Vishnoi - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 12414, Shivraj Bahadur Singh VS Collector, Sidhi - 2022 Supreme(MP) 111, Siddharth Dev Singh VS State of M. P. - 2018 Supreme(MP) 834, Triveni Bai VS Mata Prasad - 2013 Supreme(MP) 615, ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION TRAINING AND SEARCH INSTITUTE VS P. B. B. NARASIMHA RAO - 2006 Supreme(AP) 838, Dunlop India LTD. VS Union of Indias - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 395.
#MPLRCLaw #HighCourtWrit #LandRevenueDisputes
According to him under Section 46-B no second appeal lies against the order passed by Tehsildar under Section 131 of MPLRC and remedy of revision is confined to the party to the lis. ... 131 of MPLRC. ... It is correct under section 46-B of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 , the second appeal does not lie against order passed under section 131 of MPLRC but by virtu....
131 of MPLRC in first appeal. ... From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Additional Collector, Mandsaur has dismissed the revision on the ground that the petitioner has availed the relief of first appeal under section 44 of MPLRC and there is no provision under section 50 of MPLRC to revise the order passed under section ... Revision is well maintainable before t....
As per Section 51 of MPLRC, review of orders can be made by the revenue officer upon sanction of his superior officer. Section 51 of MPLRC is as under:- "51. ... It is the case of petitioner is that the petitioner had filed an application before the Tahsildar under Section 131 MPLRC, which relates to the right of way in private easement by asserting his right of access to the private land of respondents. ... Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of th....
As per fact that no second appeal lies as per Section 46 (b) of the MPLRC against an order passed under Section 131, only revision under Signature Not Verified Section 50 of the MPLRC is maintainable. ... Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 50 r/w 32 of the MPLRC. Vide the impugned order dated 13.07.2021, the Additional Collector#HL_E....
For proper appreciation, Section 131 of the MPLRC, 1959 is reproduced below: “Section 131 — Rights of way and other private rights 1. ... It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the dispute substantively relates to a customary way (paramparagat rasta) recorded and regulated under Section 131 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC) and that various orders passed by the revenue authorities already exist. ... Accordingly, this Miscellane....
Learned Revisional Court has erred in law in allowing revision preferred by the respondents without properly appreciating the facts of the case and without appreciating the provision of section 131 of the MPLRC and the judgment of the High Court, therefore, the order passed by the Revisional Court is ... On perusal for the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, Khargone, it reveals that the Additional Collector has given#HL_END....
On perusal of the Section 46(b), no second appeal lies against the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 131 of the MPLRC, therefore, the findings of the Collector is perverse and liable to be set aside. ... Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN Vide the impugned order dated 13.09.2022, the Additional Collector rejected the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that instead of availing the reme....
On perusal of the Section 46(b), no second appeal lies against the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 131 of the MPLRC, therefore, the findings of the Collector is perverse and liable to be set aside. ... Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN Vide the impugned order dated 13.09.2022, the Additional Collector rejected the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that instead of availing the reme....
Hence he prays that the order dated 6.8.2021 passed by the Tehsildar be restored and the application of the respondent filed under Section 131 of MPLRC be dismissed with cost. 7. ... Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent has filed an application under Section 131, 132 & 133 of the M.P. ... Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners preferred Revision before the Collector, Rajgarh (Biaora) and vide o....
However, it is submitted by Shri Dubey that against an order passed in first appeal out of the proceedings under Section 131 of MPLRC, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a revision. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. ... The said revision was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Harda by order dated 08.12.2022 by holding that the revision is not maintainable and second appeal would lie under #HL....
4. Aggrieved by the said order of the SDO, the petitioner preferred a revision application under section 50 of MPLRC, 1959. Vide order dated 28.1.2019 (Annexure-P/7), the Collector dismissed the revision on the ground that the revision is not maintainable against the order passed in appeal. Against all these orders, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
Therefore, the order passed is well within the four corners of section 131 of MPLRC. Hence, the petition, being devoid of merits is hereby rejected. 7. In the present case while passing the impugned order Tahsildar had called the Patwari report (inquiry report) and had passed the order impugned by following the process mentioned in MPLRC, thereby the Tahsildar has exercised his jurisdiction vested in him under section 131 of MPLRC and he had recognized the road only. He has neither created new road nor constructed any road.
11. Section 51 of the MPLRC provides for review of the order. Proviso (i-a) provides that no order shall be varied or reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order. As per sub-section (1), the Board and every Revenue Officer may, either on its/his own motion or on the application of any party interested review any order passed by itself/himself.
The procedure is prescribed under the rules as held in the case of Harikishan and others v. State of M.P. and others, 2007 (2) MPHT 98 (DB). Admittedly there is no order of the Collector for setting apart the suit land for any purposes mentioned in section 237 of the MPLRC.
The appellant also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the notice and a writ of mandamus not to withhold the excess duty paid and for an order that the earlier amount paid be refunded. ( 10 ) IN Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd, a notice, given to the Appellant under Section 131 (3) of the Customs Act for revision of the earlier order, was impeached. The appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought for a writ of prohibition restraining the authorities from conducting proceedings pursuant to the impug....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
