Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7] Shri Chhabra has also submitted that the Commissioner has given undue importance to Section 73, and Sections 109 and 110 of the MPLRC to hold that the aforesaid application u/s. 73 of MPLRC, for subdivision of land itself was not maintainable before the Tehsildar, whereas the mentioning of Section 73 in the application NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:194 was only a typographical error, and the sub-division/demarcation of the land was actually carried out in accordance with Section 129 of the MPLRC. It is also submitted that under Section 129(8) of the MPLRC, there is no appeal maintainable against an order passed under this Section. Shri Chhabra has also submitted that even otherwise, respondent No.2 does not hold any adjoining land in Survey Nos.3/2/2 and 3/2/3, which were to be sub-divided, hence the respondent No.2 had no locus to challenge the order of sub-division of land of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the boundary of the land bearing Survey Nos.3/2/2 and 3/2/3 were not even changed, and there was only a sub-division carried out with an intent to change the land use of part of the land, whereas the respondent No.2 is the owner of the land bearing Survey No.3/1/3, which is not adjoining the land at Survey Nos.3/2/2 and 3/2/3.

8] Shri Chhabra has also submitted that the second appeal was in fact, a de facto, third appeal, which has been entertained by the respondent No.1 the Commissioner, Indore, despite the fact that under the provision of MPLRC there is no provision of third appeal against an order passed in the second appeal. Shri Chhabra has also submitted that although the application for demarcation and mutation was filed by the applicant(s)/petitioners under Sections 109 & 110 of MPLRC, however, it is wrongly mentioned as an application under Section 73 by the Tehsildar, and thus, no benefit has accrued to the respondent No.2 on account of a typographical error made by the Tehsildar in the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:194 order that he is invoking the powers under Section 73 of the MPLRC. It is also submitted that no leave to appeal before the SDO was filed by the respondent No.2 despite the fact that the respondent No.2 was also granted opportunity to file the aforesaid application, but instead, a review application was filed, which has been rightly rejected by the SDO holding that no new grounds are made out.

11] On the other hand, the prayer is vehemently opposed by the Senior Counsel Shri S. Murlidhar, assisted by Shri Vivek Patwa and Shri Akshat Kothari- Advocates. Shri Murlidhar has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that in the application filed by the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:194 petitioners for demarcation, sub-division and correction of map, neither the provision of law, under which it has been filed, nor the date, have been mentioned, whereas, in his order dated 19.06.2020, the Naib Tehsildar, Malharganj, Indore has treated the aforesaid application to be an application filed under Section 73 of the MPLRC. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to Section 73 of the MPLRC, which provides all lands liable to assessment, that the District Survey Officer shall make assessment on all lands to which the survey extends where such lands are liable to the payment of land revenue or not. Thus, it is submitted that any action under Section 73 can only be taken by the District Survey Officer, and not the Naib Tehsildar, and in such circumstances only, the Tehsildar has acted without jurisdiction.

21] So far as the order of the Additional Collector dated 17.03.2023 is concerned, this Court appalled to see the manner in which the order has been passed, running into around 10(ten) pages. It is not just the pages which concern this court, but the fact that an Additional Collector, who is supposed to know the MPLRC like the back of his hand, would entertain a second appeal filed before him NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:194 under Section 44(3) of MPLRC, despite the fact that no such second appeal lies before the Collector under Section 44(3) of the MPLRC in the first place, which lies only under Section 44(2) of the MPLRC before the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue, as the case may be. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to S.44 of MPLRC, which reads as under:-