Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1579 (MP)

Kailashchandra v. State of M. P.

2022-12-21

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2022
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 4.10.2022, passed by the Additional Collector, District- Dhar in Case No.5/Revision/2022-2023 whereby in a revision preferred by the petitioner against the interim order dated 15.2.2022, passed by the S.D.O. Dhar in an appeal preferred against order dated 1.2.2022 passed by the Nayab Tehsildar, has not only upheld the interim order of SDO but has also set aside the order date 1.2.2022 passed by the Nayab Tehsildar which was the subject matter of the appeal before the SDO, preferred by the respondent No.4, 5 and 7. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as by way of the aforesaid order the Additional Collector has usurped the powers vested in the S.D.O. which is the appellate court where the order passed by the Tehsildar was pending consideration. Counsel has further submitted that after the impugned order was passed, the appellate authority, i.e., the S.D.O. has also passed the final order by referring the impugned order by the Additional Collector, stating that since the order passed by the Tehsildar is already been considered by the Additional Collector, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and also the order passed by the S.D.O. On 27.10.2022, and the matter be remanded back to the S.D.O. for its decision on merits. 3. Counsel for the respondent Nos.4,5 and 7 has opposed the prayer and has submitted that no case for interference is made out as even otherwise, the respondents have sound case on merits. However, it is not denied that the revision has been filed by the petitioner against the interim order of status quo passed by the S.D.O. and not against the order of Tehsildar. 4. Counsel for the State submitted that appropriate order be passed as only legal points are involved. 5. Heard. However, it is not denied that the revision has been filed by the petitioner against the interim order of status quo passed by the S.D.O. and not against the order of Tehsildar. 4. Counsel for the State submitted that appropriate order be passed as only legal points are involved. 5. Heard. On due consideration of the submissions and perusal of the documents filed on record, including the interim order of status quo, it is apparent that the revision was preferred before the Additional Collector against the interim order passed by the S.D.O., and the S.D.O. has passed the interim order in an appeal preferred against the order dated 1.2.2022 passed by the Tehsildar and the Additional Collector has not only affirm the interim order passed by the S.D.O., but has also set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar which was not even before the Additional Collector, and thus, this impugned order dated 4.10.2022 has led the appellate authority i.e., the S.D.O. to reject the appeal preferred against the order of Tehsildar. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid procedure adopted by the respondent No.2. i.e. Additional Collector runs contrary to the settle principles of law and apparently the Additional Collector has usurped the powers of appellate Court vested in the S.D.O., and in such circumstances the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is thereby quashed. Consequently, the order passed by the S.D.O. on 27.10.2022 has also to go and is accordingly, the same is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the S.D.O. to be heard on merits in accordance with law. The S.D.O. is directed to decide the matter finally after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties and without being influence by the order passed by the Additional Collector. It is made clear that this court has also not reflected on the merits of the case. Parties are directed to appear before the S.D.O. on 4.1.2023. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.