Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheshrao vs Madhorao on 14 November, 2025
1 MP-6312-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 14th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 6312 of 2025
SHESHRAO
Versus
MADHORAO AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Surdeep Khampariya - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/6, dated 20.08.2025 whereby in a review, the Tahsildar has modified his earlier order Annexure P/3, which was dated 29.11.2024.
2. 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. The Tahsildar had upheld the right of the petitioner to get access to his agricultural land and directed the private land of respondents to be used as way for the petitioner to have access to their land.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this well reasoned order Annexure P/3 has been reversed in review without assigning any cogent reason and without the respondents filing any appeal or revision or review against that order Annexure P/3 and the Tahsildar has Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-11-2025 18:35:47 2 MP-6312-2025 gravely erred in not following the procedure laid down by law and going beyond his jurisdiction in reversing his earlier well-reasoned order Annexure P/3.
4. Upon hearing counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is seen that earlier vide order Annexure P/3 passed under Section 131 MPLRC, the Tahsildar had held that the respondents are having some land on which the petitioners are having right of access to their agricultural land. Though the assertion was denied by the respondents But the Tahsildar acting on the Patwari report had passed an order directing access to the petitioner from the land of respondents.
5. It appears that the respondents approached the Collector and the Collector upon such an approach being made by the respondents in a public hearing i.e. in Jan Sunwai, directed the Tahsildar to take up the matter in review and the Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order sheet dated 17-03-2025 permitted the Tahsildar to review his earlier order.
6. 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. Review of orders.-- (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 or by any of its/his predecessors in office and pass such order in reference thereto as it/he thinks fit:
Provided that --
• if the Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner, Collector or Settlement Officer thinks it necessary to review any order which he has not himself passed, he shall first obtain the sanction of the Board, and if an officer subordinate to a Collector or Settlement Officer proposes to review any order, whether passed by himself or by any predecessor, he shall first obtain the sanction in writing of the authority to whom he is immediately subordinate;] Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-11-2025 18:35:47 3 MP-6312-2025 (i-a) 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;
(ii) no order from which an appeal has been made, or which is the subject of any revision proceedings shall, so long as such appeal or proceedings are pending be reviewed;
(iii) no order affecting any question of right between private persons shall be reviewed except on the application of a party to the proceedings, and no application for the review of such order shall be entertained unless it is made within 3[sixty days] from the passing of the order :
Provided that where the order, against which the application for review is being presented, made before the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2011, in such case review shall be entertained within ninety days from the date of order.] (2) No order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908).
(3) For the purposes of this section, the Collector shall be deemed to be the successor in office of any Revenue Officer who has left the district or who has 41 ceased to exercise powers as a Revenue Officer and to whom there is no successor in the district.
(4)An order which has been dealt with in appeal or on revision shall not be reviewed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the appellate or revisional authority."
7. In the present case, from the perusal of the order Annexure P/6, it is seen that there was a permission of the superior officer and the Tahsildar took up the review proceedings under Section 51 of MPLRC upon getting permission of his superior officer.
8. The Tahsildar fixed the case for reply of rival parties and called for a fresh record verification report. It was found that the petitioner was having land in other direction but he has sold substantial part of that land and is now demanding access to the land of the respondent in south direction. He has also sold some of his land in south direction and there is vacant government land towards south of land of the petitioner from which he has access to the main road and otherwise also from the land of petitioner on the both sides adjacent thereto, a way is available to access the main road. It was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-11-2025 18:35:47 4 MP-6312-2025 found that the petitioner is demanding access to a land from which he has never used as a path/ way and the earlier order was found to be erroneous and was recalled.
9. In view of the aforesaid factual assertions made in the order Annexure P/6 passed in review, this court is not in a position to interfere with the said order. It seems to be well-reasoned and speaking order dealing with each and every aspect of the matter and this court is not in a position to reverse the said order so as to grant access to the petitioner from the private land of the respondent.
10. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE MISHRA Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 18-11-2025 18:35:47