Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1135 (MP)

Vijendra v. State of M. P.

2022-09-14

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2022
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain in revision No. 40/2018-19 (Revision) whereby the petitioner's revision filed under section 50 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 has been held to be not maintainable, as according to the Commissioner, an appeal is maintainable against the order impugned in the revision. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the original order in the present case was passed on 30.6.2016 in a suo motu revision by the Collector, Ratlam, against which order, the petitioner had preferred a revision under section 50 of the Land Revenue Code before the Board of Revenue. However, as the Land Revenue Code was amended on 25.9.2018, the Board of Revenue has sent the matter to the Commissioner, Ujjain to decide the same and in the aforesaid proceedings before the Commissioner; the impugned order has been passed holding that an appeal would be maintainable. It is submitted that since the revision was preferred not against an order passed in an appeal but in an order passed in a suo motu revision by the Collector. Hence, it is not a case where the second appeal would be available to the petitioner under section 44 (3) of the Land Revenue Code. 3. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that as per the Amended Act, although the second revision is not maintainable but the revisions which are already pending can be decided as per section 54 of the Amended Act. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Commissioner to decide in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Commissioner to decide in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer. On due consideration of the rival submissions and considering the impugned order as also the documents filed on record, this Court finds that the revision is not maintainable only as provided under section 50 (2) of the Land Revenue Code, which reads as under:- "50 (2) No application for revision shall be entertained - (a) against an order appealable under this Code; (b) against any order passed in second appeal under this Code; (c) against an order passed in revision; (d) against an order of the Commissioner under section 210; (e) unless presented within forty-five days from the date of order or its communication to the party, whichever is later: Provided that where an order, against which an application for revision is being preferred, was made before the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2018 the period of limitation for presenting the application for revision shall be as provided in the Code prior to the said Amendment Act." 5. Admittedly, the order in the present case, which was challenged before the Commissioner, was passed on a suo motu revision by the Collector, which cannot fall under any of the category as enumerated under sub-section (2) of section 50 of the Code. In the considered opinion of this Court even otherwise the revision filed by the petitioner was not the second revision as it is not a case that the earlier order which was challenged in the revision was also passed in a revision filed by the petitioner only, as it was an order passed on a sou motu revision initiated by the Collector. Thus, for all the practical purposes it was the first revision filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, which was preferred prior to the amendment. 6. In view of the same, the petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Ujjain to decide the same on its on merits in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Commissioner, Ujjain on 27.9.2022.