Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Suneta Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 2345 of 2025
SMT SUNEETA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra and Shri Akram Khan, learned counsel
for the appellant.
Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for
respondents No.1 to 3.
Shri S.K.Shrivastava and Shri Siddharth Sharma- learned
counsel for the respondent No.4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Per. Justice Pushpendra Yadav The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred against order dated 23.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.29554/2024, whereby petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
22. Briefly stated facts of the case are that sale deed dated 28.02.2024 was executed in favour of the appellant. In Para-5.6 of the writ petition, the appellant stated that despite mentioning of handing over the possession of sale-deed, actual possession was never delivered and was assured by the sellers that they would hand over the possession after removing certain items of the property. Since the possession of the property was not handed over, the appellant initiated proceedings under Section 250 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred as "MPLRC") before the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar allowed the said application vide order dated 15.07.2024 and directed for eviction of respondents No.4 and 5 from the property. Against the said order, an appeal vide No.72/Appeal/2024-25 was preferred before the SDO which was decided vide order dated 22.08.2024.
3. On the basis of said sale-deed, the appellant has also filed an application under Section 110 of MPLRC. In the said proceeding, the Tehsildar has passed the order against which another appeal was filed before the SDO bearing No.50/Appeal/2024-25. Both the appeals were decided by two separate orders dated 22.08.2024 whereby the SDO looking to the controversy involved in the case, passed the final order of status quo by holding that since the revenue Court has no authority to analyze the execution of the power of attorney and sale-deed executed in pursuance thereof, therefore, parties are directed to maintain status quo.
4. The orders passed in both the appeals were challenged by the appellant in the writ petition taking solitary ground that the SDO against the order passed by Tehsildar under Section 110 and 250 of MPLRC was required to either allow the appeal in full or in part or to dismiss it, but the mid way which has been carved out by the SDO is not permissible. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before the writ Court 3 was that by the order impugned, the SDO has neither varied nor reversed the order of Tehsildar, therefore, no second appeal would lie.
5. Learned writ Court after considering the submissions made by the parties held that an order of status quo while not a final decision on the merits of the case can be considered a variation on a lower Court's order if it effectively alters the lower Court's directive. This occurs when the status quo order significantly changes the existing situation established by the lower Court's order rather then merely mentioning the existing state of affairs. Learned writ Court on the strength of the said findings, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.
6. The appellant has challenged the order passed by writ Court on the very same ground that the SDO neither varied nor reversed the order passed by Tehsildar therefore, no second appeal would lie and learned writ Court has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State as well as other respondent supported the order and findings recorded by learned writ Court and opposed the present appeal.
8. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
9. The order passed by Tehsildar was initially challenged in appeal filed under Section 44 (1) of MPLRC. Sub-Section 2 of Section 44 of MPLRC provides that a second appeal shall lie against every order passed in first appeal. Sub-Section 3 of Section 44 of MPLRC provides the condition of filing of a second appeal. Sub-Section 3 of Section 44 of MPLRC is reproduced as under:-
(3)The second appeal shall lie only -
(a) If the original order has in the first appeal been varied 4 or reversed otherwise than in a matter of cost; or
(b)on any of the following grounds and no other, namely :-
(i) that the order is contrary to law or, usage having the force of law; or
(ii)that the order has failed to determine some material issue of law, or usage having force of law; or
(iii)that there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Code, which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits.
From perusal of Sub-Section 3 of Section 44 of MPLRC, it is clear that second appeal shall lie if the original order has in the first appeal been varied or reversed or on any of the grounds mentioned in Clause-(i) to (iii) of Clause-b of Sub-Section 3 of Section 44 of MPLRC.
In section 44 (3) of MPLRC, the legislature has used the word 'OR' between Clause (a) and Sub-Clause (i) to (iii) of Clause-b of Sub-Section 3 of Section 44 of MPLRC. Meaning thereby, Clause (a) and Sub-Clause (i) to (iii) of Clause (b) are independent in nature and second appeal would lie if any one of the condition is fulfilled.
10. If it is the contention of the appellant that the SDO has only passed the order of status quo which is not in accordance with law and by which the first appellate order neither being varied nor reversed then in such situation he has remedy to challenge the same under Sub-Clause-(i) and
(ii) of Clause-(b) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 44 of MPLRC.
11. The SDO has finally decided both the appeals by directing the parties to maintain status quo which means that the order passed by the Tehsildar would not be given effect to, which amounts the variation of the order passed by Tehsildar. Learned writ Court has rightly appreciated the 5 facts of the case and has not committed any error on the face of record in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. Hence, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. The order passed by learned Writ Court stands affirmed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
Ashish* JUDGE JUDGE
ASHISH
CHAURASIA
2025.09.04
10:21:52
+05'30'