[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34954
1 WP-120-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 120 of 2025
RAMESH SONI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mohan Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh, Govt. Advocate for the respondents 1 to 5/State.
None present for the respondents 6 to 10 though served.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by
Additional Collector, District Indore, granting permission to review as well as the
order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-2), passed by Additional Tehsildar, Tappa
Betma, Tehsil Depalpur, District Indore reviewing the order.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of mutation application
having been preferred by respondents 6 to 10 under Sections 109, 110 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The order was passed by the
Tehsildar on 09.08.2024 dismissing the same. Thereafter, it appears that an
application was preferred by respondents 6 to 10 before him for review of the
order. The matter was forwarded by the Additional Tehsildar to the Additional
Collector, District Indore for granting sanction for review. The said sanction was
granted on 03.10.2024 after which on the very next day i.e. 04.10.2024, the order
was reviewed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34954
2 WP-120-2025
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention to the
effect that no notice was issued to the petitioner and he was not afforded any
opportunity of hearing and the orders were passed behind his back. The said
illegality has been committed by the Additional Collector while granting sanction
for review and by the Tehsildar while reviewing the order. It is further submitted
that since the order was an appealable order, the same could not have been taken
up in review.
4. None has appeared on behalf of respondents 6 to 10 to oppose this
petition.
5. The order which had been passed by the Tehsildar on 09.08.2024 was as
regards dismissing the mutation application of respondents 4 to 10. The said order
was an order appealable before the appellate authority under Section 44(1) of the
Code. However, no such appeal was preferred and instead review proceedings
were initiated before the Tehsildar who forwarded the matter to the Additional
Collector for grant of sanction to review the order. It is evident from the
ordersheets that while granting sanction for review, no notice was issued to the
petitioner. In fact sanction was granted by the Additional Collector on the very
same day the proceedings were received by him. Surprisingly, on the very next day
the order was also reviewed by the Tehsildar without affording opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and without issuing any notice to him. In just two days,
the entire review proceedings have been initiated and finally decided behind the
back of the petitioner and without his knowledge which is in gross contravention
to the principles of natural justice.
6. In Siddhart Dev Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others , WP No.
22213/2017 decided by this Court by order dated 18.05.2018 on which reliance
has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner it has been held that no order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34954
3 WP-120-2025
shall be reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear
and be heard in support of such order. If the same is not done then the order would
be without jurisdiction. It has been held as under:-
" 13. In the present case, even before taking prior sanction from the
higher authority, respondent No.2 has not issued any notice to the
petitioner which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Shaheed Anwar (supra). Thus, while
exercising the powers under Section 51 of MPLRC, the authorities are
required to issue notice or give opportunity of hearing to the person
concerned i.e. at the time of obtaining the sanction for exercising the
power of review before passing an order of review."
7. Thus, since no notice was issued to the petitioner either prior to seeking
sanction for review, at the time of granting such sanction and while reviewing the
order, the orders impugned in this petition i.e. dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure P-1)
and 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.
Respondents 6 to 10 would however be at liberty to take recourse to such remedies
as may be available to them under the law.
8. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
VD
