ORDER This petition is filed challenging the validity of part of Notification dated 10-4-2013 issued under M.P. Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam. 2010 by which following provisions have been made:- Entry No. Name of the service Name of the specified officer Fixed period for providing services Name of First Appeal Limitation for deciding First Appeal Name of the officer for deciding Second Appeal (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 4.13 Demarcation of land Tehsildar Upper Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar (in their empowerment) 30 working days Section Officer Revenue 30 working days Collector 4.14 Mutation of undisputed land Tehsildar/Upper Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar (in their empowerment) 30 working days Section 30 Officer, working Revenue days 30 working days Collector 4.15 Undisputed Partition Tehsilder Upper Tehsilder/Naib Tehsildar (in their empowerment) 30 working days Section Officer, Revenue 30 working days Collector It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid provision has been made contrary to the provisions as contained in Sections 127, 110 and 178 of the Land Revenue Code. It is submitted that for deciding the aforesaid application the Tehsildar has to extend an opportunity of hearing to other side. That there is no definition envisaged in this notification in respect of 'undisputed' demarcation, mutation and partition, in absence of which the authorities cannot decide the matter within the time period as fixed by the notification. It is also stated by Shri Sirpurkar that this petition is filed on behalf of an Advocate, who is very much concerned with the functioning of the Revenue Court, and may be admitted for hearing. 2. From perusal of the aforesaid Act namely M.P. Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2010"), it is apparent that the entire purpose for enactment of the Act of 2010 is to provide for speedy services to the people of the State, within the stipulated time limit and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto, meaning thereby the State has enacted the aforesaid Act for speedy justice in the State, in respect of the matters covered under the Act. 3. 3. So far as provisions as contained in Sections 127, 110 and 178 of the MPLR Code, in respect of undisputed matters are concerned, these matters can be decided within the period stipulated in the said notification, but so far as contested matters are concerned, some more time may be required. The aforesaid provision provides the time period only in respect to undisputed matter. The authority has been directed to decide undisputed matters within the time period as has been fixed in the notification. 4. So far as non-providing of definition in the Act is concerned, it appears that it is within the wisdom of the concerned authority who is deciding the matter. If the matter is undisputed then he has to simply process the matter and pass final order. If some dispute is there or objection is filed for demarcation, mutation or partition, the aforesaid time period will not be applicable. 5. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we find no merit in the petition. The Act of 2010 has been enacted to facilitate the public at large, so the public will get services within the time period as fixed in the notification. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed at admission stage. No order as to costs.