Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Siromani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 19 September, 2013
W.P. No. 15956 of 2013 (O)
19.09.2013
Shri Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Ashok Chourasiya, learned Govt. Adv for respondent nos. 1
to 5.
Heard on the question of admission.
Keeping in view arguments, advanced by the petitioners' counsel that initially after filing the application by the petitioners, under Section 178 of M.P.L.R.C., in short "The Code", before the Court of Naib Tahsildar, inspite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents, on which such case was proceeded exparte and without filing any application under Section 35 of M.P.L.R.C., such exparte order was challenged by the respondents before the Collector by way of revision. On consideration such revision was dismissed, on which respondents approached to the Additional Commissioner who allowed the revision of the respondents and by setting aside the order of Collector, directed the Tahsildar to decide the matter afresh in presence of both the parties. On challenging such order by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, the order of Commissioner has been affirmed. In continuation he said that before passing the order by the Commissioner on dated 26.6.2006 in the aforesaid revision, the entire case of Section 178 of the Code was decided by the Tahsildar on merits and against that at the instance of respondents a Revenue Appeal was filed and the same was pending before the SDO and all questions including the question to the interlocutory order of Tahsildar could have been raised and considered by the SDO in such appeal but by ignoring such legal position, the Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue have decided the impugned revision on such questions and set aside the order of Collector, this petition appears to be arguable, hence it is directed that on payment of PF alongwith requisites of registered post within three working days, notice against admission as well as interim relief, returnable by fixing a date within two months be issued to the respondents, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench.
Meanwhile SDO, Mauganj, district Rewa is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid pending appeal, as pointed out by the petitioners' counsel, on its merits and without influencing from any observation or finding made by the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue in the impugned orders. Such exercise be carried out by the SDO within 45 days from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order before him by the petitioner.
The petitioners' counsel is directed to submit certified copy of this order in the court of SDO in which the aforesaid appeal at the instance of private respondent is pending within ten days from today.
The case be listed on the date which is so mentioned on the aforesaid notice.
C c as per rules.
( U.C. Maheshwari ) Judge bks