Hukma (Dead) S/O Late Shri Bansi Jatav ... vs Prem Narayan Sharma on 11 August, 2025

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hukma (Dead) S/O Late Shri Bansi Jatav ... vs Prem Narayan Sharma on 11 August, 2025

1. The present appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellants being crestfallen by the order dated 08-04-2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4543 of 2021 whereby the petition preferred by respondent No.1 has been allowed setting aside the order of Additional Commissioner.

2. Matter pertains to correction of revenue record. Respondents Hukma, Babariya and Barelal are brothers and they executed a registered power of attorney in favour of petitioner to sold the property. Upon which petitioner sold the property of survey No.1467/2. Hukma and Babariya also sold the property to the 2 petitioner and other persons of survey No.1497/1 and 1501/1. Thereafter, application was filed for partition and mutation before settlement officer wherein partition order was passed and mutation was done in favour of Barelal, Hukma and Babariya over said survey numbers. Since this order of partition and mutation was passed concealing the fact that property from the said survey numbers have already been sold, therefore, petitioner moved an application under Section 89 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") which was allowed by the SDO vide its order dated 25-03-2011. Appellants preferred appeal before the Additional Collector, Shivpuri which was dismissed and thereafter preferred second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior which was allowed. Therefore, respondent No.1 preferred writ petition which was allowed by learned Writ Court, therefore, appellants are before this Court.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that in view of Section 24(2) of the Code and notification dated 27 th Juen, 1968, the application preferred by respondent No.1 under Section 89 of the Code before SDO, was required to be dealt with by Tahsildar while it was decided by the SDO, therefore, Additional Commissioner, rightly set aside the orders of SDO and Additional Collector, Shivpuri. It is further submitted that civil proceedings for the similar issues and disputes are pending consideration between the parties and matter is pending at the appellate stage, therefore, matter may be relegated there.

4. It is further submitted that learned Writ Court did not consider the controversy in correct perspective and without considering the material aspects of the matter, allowed the writ petition of 3 respondent No.1. Thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 while supporting the order passed by learned Writ Court, opposed the prayer and submits that the SDO was well within its jurisdiction in entertaining the application under Section 89 of the Code. Thus, prayed for dismissal of writ appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

7. This is a case where appellants are taking exception to the order passed by learned Writ Court whereby the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division has been set aside. The dispute relates to entertainment of application preferred by respondent No.1 under Section 89 of the Code seeking correction of revenue record.

8. Learned Writ Court discussed the issue in following manner:

"11. Admittedly, the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 24(2) of the MPLRC had conferred powers vested with SDO under Section 87 of MPLRC (new Section 89 MPLRC) upon the Tehsildars vide notification dated 27.06.1968. The State Government has authority to confer such powers on Tahsildar as conferred by this Code on a Revenue Officer of a higher grade and therefore, it is clear that the powers of SDO under Section 87 of MPLRC (New Section 89 MPLRC) could be conferred upon the Tehsildars by the said notification in additional to the powers of the SDO.

12. Even after the power is delegated to an authority, the 4 authority with whom the power originally exists by virtue of a Statute does not lose the power. Delegation is only in addition to the power which is held by the delegating authority. The general accepted theory is that an authority which delegates its powers does not divest itself of them. It is almost settled position of law that even after delegation of powers, the delegating authority retains the power so delegated. In other words, even after delegation of powers, the original authority is not denuded and stripped off the powers conferred by the legislation.

13. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned Additional Commissioner has committed an illegality in setting aside the order dated 25.03.2011 passed by SDO. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner is hereby set-aside."

9. So far as the contention of appellants in relation to SDO not having the jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 89 of the Code is concerned, same is not legally correct because Section 89 of the Code itself bestowed S.D.O. the power to entertain such application. Thus, the order of Additional Commissioner rightly set aside by learned Writ Court.

10. From the record, it appears that civil proceedings (Civil Suit No.13-A/2013) having similar issues and disputes, are pending consideration between the parties and now matter is pending at the appellate stage, therefore, parties may get their grievance redressed through civil Court as civil Court is having wide 5 jurisdiction to hear and decide the grievance of the parties. Further the prospects of parties shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Civil Court.

11. Considering the rival submission and also the discussion surfaced in the impugned order as well as looking to the facts situation, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the order passed by learned Writ Court is hereby affirmed and the writ appeal preferred by the appellants is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that any order passed by the Civil Court shall govern the prospects of parties accordingly.

12. Appeal stands dismissed with aforesaid observation.

                                   (ANAND PATHAK)                           (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
Anil*                                  JUDGE                                       JUDGE


    ANIL KUMAR
                 Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
                 DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                 PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
                 OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,


    CHAURASIY

2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51dae 27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F4A A 296DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9C244 6E, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA Date: 2025.08.18 19:40:41 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court