Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 435 (MP)

Rajesh Kumar Jain v. Sunil Kumar Jain

2025-08-04

HIMANSHU JOSHI

body2025
ORDER : HIMANSHU JOSHI, J. Heard. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jabalpur (M.P.) as well as the order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure-P/5) passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Circle- Khamariya, District- Jabalpur. By order dated 29.04.2025, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Jabalpur, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Circle- Khamariya, District- Jabalpur, on 16.11.2022 directing for partition of the land and preparation of map belonging to the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have moved an application for batankan of the land and preparation of map under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 [for short 'MPLRC'], before the Additional Tahsildar. The order-sheet of the Additional Tahsildar shows that he had called for the report from Patwari and has passed the order dated 31.08.2022 rejecting the application filed by the respondents. Thereafter, the Additional Tahsildar reviewed his own order and passed the order dated 16.11.2022 allowing the application which was dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2022. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 44 of the MPLRC before the Sub Divisional Officer, who, in a very casual manner, rejected the appeal. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the learned Additional Tahsildar has followed the due procedure of law prescribed under the MPLRC. He further submits that against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, an alternative remedy of filing a second appeal under Section 44 (2) and revision under Section 50 of the MPLRC, is available to the petitioner. 5. Since, the tenability of the petition is questioned on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, therefore, this Court has to deal with the said legal aspect going through the provisions contained in MPLRC. 6. Section 44 of the MPLRC deals with the provision of first appeal and second appeal, as the case may be. The same is quoted hereinunder- [44. 6. Section 44 of the MPLRC deals with the provision of first appeal and second appeal, as the case may be. The same is quoted hereinunder- [44. Appeal and appellate authorities.- (1)Save where it has been otherwise provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order of a Revenue Officer competent to pass such order under this Code or the rules made thereunder- (a) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Officer - to the Sub-Divisional Officer; (b) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Deputy Survey Officer - to the Deputy Survey Officer; (c) if such order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer - to the Collector; (d) if such order is passed by the Deputy Survey Officer - to the District Survey Officer; (e) if such order is passed by any Assistant Collector, Joint Collector or Deputy Collector to whom the powers have been conferred under Section 24 - to the Collector; (f) if such order is passed by any Revenue Officer in respect of whom a direction has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 12 - to such Revenue Officer as the State Government may direct; (g) if such order is passed by a Collector or District Survey Officer - to the Commissioner; (h) if such order is passed by the Commissioner - to the Board. (2) Save as otherwise provided, a second appeal shall lie against every order passed in first appeal under this Code or the rules made thereunder - (a) by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Survey Officer or the Collector or the District Survey Officer - to the Commissioner; (b) by the Commissioner - to the Board. (3) The second appeal shall lie only - (a) if the original order has in the first appeal been varied or reversed otherwise than in a matter of cost; or (b) on any of the following grounds and no other, namely :- (i) that the order is contrary to law or, usage having the force of law; or (ii) that the order has failed to determine some material issue of law, or usage having force of law; or (iii) that there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Code, which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits. (4) An order passed in review varying or reversing any order shall be appealable in like manner as the original order.] 7. On careful reading of the aforesaid provision in the context of instant case, it is crystal clear that if the order is passed by any Revenue Officer subordinate to the Sub-Divisional officer, then first appeal can be filed before the Sub Divisional officer and second appeal will lie before the Commissioner, if the original order in the first appeal has been varied or reversed otherwise than in a matter of cost or on the ground that the order is contrary to law or, usage having the force of law, or the order has failed to determine some material issue of law, or usage having force of law, or there has been a substantial error or defect in the procedure as prescribed by this Code which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon merits. 8. Further, Section 50 of the MPLRC, deals with the provision of revision, which is also quoted hereinunder- [50. 8. Further, Section 50 of the MPLRC, deals with the provision of revision, which is also quoted hereinunder- [50. Revision.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5), -(a) the Board may, at any time on its own motion or on an application made by any party, call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which an order has been passed under this Code by the Commissioner; (b) the Commissioner may, at any time on his own motion or on an application made by any party, call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which an order has been passed under this Code by the Collector or the District Survey Officer; (c) the Collector or the District Survey Officer may, at any time on his own motion or on an application of any party, call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which an order has been passed under this Code by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him; and if it appears that the subordinate Revenue Officer - (i) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by this Code; or (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (iii) has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board or the Commissioner or the Collector or the District Survey Officer may make such order in the case as it or he thinks fit. (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. (3) The Board or the Commissioner or Collector or the District Survey Officer shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made or any order deciding an issue, in the course of proceeding, except where - [(a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the proceedings; or] (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. (4) A revision shall not operate as a stay of proceeding before the Revenue Officer, except where such proceeding is stayed by the Board or the Commissioner or the Collector or the District Survey Officer, as the case may be. (5) No order shall be varied or reversed in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section all Revenue Officers shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Board.] 9. Upon perusal of the provisions of Section 50 of the MPLRC, in the context of present case, the Collector, at any time on his own motion or on an application of any party, call for the record of any case which has been decided or proceedings in which an order has been passed under this Code by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him, if it appears that the subordinate Revenue officer has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by this Code, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the collector may make such order in the case as he thinks fit. But, no application for revision shall be entertained against an order appelable under this Code; against any order passed in second appeal under this Code; against an order passed in revision; against an order of the Commissioner under Section 210; and unless presented within forty-five days from the date of order or its communication to the party, whichever is later. 10. While Article 227 of the Constitution of India, grants supervisory jurisdiction to the High Courts, it is a well-settled principle of law that the power under Article 227 is discretionary and extraordinary in nature. 10. While Article 227 of the Constitution of India, grants supervisory jurisdiction to the High Courts, it is a well-settled principle of law that the power under Article 227 is discretionary and extraordinary in nature. It is not to be exercised routinely or as a substitute for appellate or revisionary jurisdiction. One important facet that courts consider before entertaining such a petition is the existence of an alternative remedy. In the number of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that if a party has an effective and efficacious remedy available under the statute, the High Court generally refrains from exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, however, this rule is not absolute. The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court, but it does discourage its invocation unless certain exceptions apply. 11. In the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 , the Court has held that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner. The guiding principles on the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, observing that alternative remedies should ordinarily be pursued first. Relevant para is quoted hereinunder :- "62. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: (a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different. (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above. (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above. (c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court. (d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court. (e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'. (f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. (g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. (h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. (h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. (i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful. (j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. (k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu. (l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory. (m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. (n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. (n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above. (o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality." 12. Be that as it may. Admittedly, against the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, an alternative remedy of filing a second appeal under Section 44 (2) and (3) or revision under Section 50 of the MPLRC, is available to the petitioner, despite that, he has invoked the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, without exhausting the statutory alternative and efficacious remedy available to him. When there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court should refrain from entertaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Hence, the present petition is dismissed for the reason of availability of alternative remedy. 14. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from today, for which period, the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance and thereafter, the petitioner may seek further interim protection by filing appropriate application before the concerned authority. 15. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands dismissed.