Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devi Singh vs Kalyan on 16 March, 2017
WP-2749-2016
(DEVI SINGH Vs KALYAN)
16-03-2017
Shri Shishir Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.Anjana Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Taking exception to the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 16.2.2016, the petitioner has approached this court contending that the Board of Revenue has committed serious illegality while refusing to grant interim protection against the proceeding initiated against him under Section 250 of M.P.Land Revenue Code (hereinafter shall be referred to as MPLRC), as the petitioner's application under Section 32 of MPLRC for staying the proceeding before the Tahsildar is pending consideration.
Admittedly, the proceeding initiated by the Tahsildar under Section 129 of MPLRC is the subject matter of revision before the Board of Revenue. The petitioner has not taken any step whatsoever to press the application under Section 32 of MPLRC allegedly filed before the Board of Revenue and at the same time, petitioner approached Tahsildar to stay proceeding under Section 250 of MPLRC on the ground that the matter is pending before the higher forum.
Both the authorities below found that unless the order passed under Section 129 of MPLRC is interfered with by the competent authority, the proceeding under Section 250 of MPLRC can not be stayed.
It is relevant to mention here that no grievance with reference to the proceeding under Section 129 of MPLRC against the order passed by the Tahsildar is subject matter of this petition and therefore no direction of the nature sought for can be issued in this writ petition for staying the proceeding under Section 129 of MPLRC. However, the petitioner is always free to approach the Board of Revenue for consideration of his pending application under Section 32 filed alongwith the revision petition against the order passed by Tahsildar under Section 129 of MPLRC. If such an application for early hearing of the case is filed, the same shall be considered with promptitude.
With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE SP