Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The present petition has been filed challenging orders dated 05.06.2024, 21.06.2022, 29.03.2023, 20.05.2023, 23.04.2024 and 19.06.2024.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has expressed anxiety that in terms of the impugned orders, the petitioners are being dispossessed and the dispossession will take place even today or in the next one or two days.

3. The brief facts of the case as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the demarcation proceedings dated 20.05.2023 were carried out in which proceedings, the petitioners were found to be in possession of land owned by the respondent No.5. The demarcation proceedings of 20.05.2023 are on record as Annexure P/8. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal/application in terms of Section 129(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'MPLRC') challenging the demarcation proceedings on the ground that the petitioners were neither heard nor were noticed during the demarcation proceedings. The said application was dealt with by the Sub Divisional Officer and was rejected, being barred by time in 2 WP-16690-2024 terms of limitation provided under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC. Against the said order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P/7) passed by the SDO, petitioners filed a revision before the Additional Collector. In the intervening time, on the strength of the demarcation report dated 20.05.2023, the present respondent No.5 initiated proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC for eviction of the petitioners. In the revision filed before the Additional Collector against the order Annexure P/7 passed by the SDO which was in terms of the Section 129(5) of the MPLRC, the Additional Collector passed an order dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure P/9) whereby the Additional Collector stayed the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC though, the said proceedings were not under challenge before the Additional Collector. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.05.2024, the Additional Collector posted the matter for final hearing but directed that status quo on the land in question shall be maintained by the parties.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 on caveat submits that the Additional Collector has not erred in passing the order dated 05.06.2024 because in the revision filed before the Additional Collector, there was no challenge to the proceedings instituted under Section 250 of the MPLRC, rather challenge originated from the order dated 20.05.2023 and not from the eviction proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC. Thus, the Additional Collector has only corrected this illegality which was committed in staying proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC which was not under challenge before the Collector. It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 5 that as per Section 129(8) of the MPLRC, no appeal or revision lies against the order passed by the SDO under Section 129(6) of the MPLRC. Thus, it is contended that the revision itself before the Additional Collector was not maintainable and the orders passed in the revision filed before the Additional Collector, which itself was not maintainable, are non-est. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 further submits that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing statutory appeal before the concerning appellate authority against the order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P/10) passed 4 WP-16690-2024 in the proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC.

10. Section 129(8) of the MPLRC reads as under :

''Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 44 and 50. no appeal or application for revision shall lie against any order passed or proceedings taken under this section.''

11. The order Annexure P/7 dated 23.04.2024 passed by the SDO is 5 WP-16690-2024 undisputedly an order disposing the application under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC filed by the present petitioners. The said application has been decided and thereafter no further remedy of appeal or revision under the MPLRC lies to the petitioners after suffering rejection under Section 129(5) of the MPLRC.

12. In view of the specific and clear provisions of Section 129(8) of MPLRC, it is crystal clear that the revision filed by the petitioners before the Additional Collector itself was not maintainable, though the petitioners could have remedy else where. The orders of status-quo and stay of proceedings under Section 250 of the MPLRC passed during the course of a revision which itself was not maintainable cannot be protected by this Court by exercising the writ jurisdiction. In other words, by accepting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court cannot put to life the interim orders passed by the Additional Collector in a revision which itself was not maintainable as per the provisions of MPLRC.