Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balmukund Singh Gautam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 2015
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
1
W.P.No.5775/2015
14/09/2015
Mr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Aniket Naik, counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. C.L.Yadav, Sr.Counsel with Mr. O.P.Solanki counsel for respondent No.3.
Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Board of Revenue dated 29.07.2015 whereby the revision petition filed by respondent No.3 was allowed and the demarcation report dated 14.3.2015 was set aside.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he had raised an objection and had also filed a caveat before the Board of Revenue but matter has been decided by the Board of Revenue without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has fairly stated before this court that the matter be remitted back to the 2 Board of Revenue for passing a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
In these circumstances and taking note of the fact that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who is one of the affected party, the order dated 29.07.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside by directing the Board of Revenue to decide the revision petition afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned parties.
Needless to say that any action in pursuance to the order passed by the Board of Revenue will not survive since the order itself has been set aside by this court.
The Board of Revenue is expected to decide the revision petition afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of appearance of the parties.
The parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue on 5.10.2015.
3
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. C.c. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava, J.) mk