Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 282 (MP)

Hemlata Rana v. State of M. P.

2025-04-17

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2025
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.3.2025 passed by the respondent No.2/Naib Tahsildar on an application filed by the respondent No.4 under section 178 of the M.P. Land Revenue, Code 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Code of 1959"); whereby, the respondent No.4 had sought partition of the land. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order has been passed without jurisdiction as the dispute is already pending before the Civil Court, and even the partition has been allowed without assigning any reason as to how the partition, has to be carried out. It is further submitted that the remedy of appeal as provided under section 44 of the Code of 1959 is not the efficacious remedy. 4. Counsel for the respondent/State on the otherhand, has opposed the prayer and it submitted that the petitioner can raise all the objections before the appellate authority and no interference is called for. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition can certainly be raised before the appellate authority, who is competent enough to reflect upon all the grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition. 7. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition when the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available to him. 8. In such circumstances, the admission standsdeclined, and, the petition is hereby dismissed as having not maintainable on account of availability of alternative remedy. However, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to assail the impugned order before the appellate Authority. 9. Needless to say, the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting this petition shall be excluded from the period of limitation. It is also directed that if any application for stay is filed by the petitioner before the appellate Authority, the same shall be decided within a week's time by the Appellate Authority. 10. Accordingly, the petition is hereby, disposed of.