Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vishnudatta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1410
1 WP-3899-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3899 of 2017
VISHNUDATTA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani -learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri M.P.S. Raghuwanshi, Senior Advocate with Shri Vijay Jha,
Advocate for the respondent no.6.
Shri M S Jadon GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
directed against the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the respondent no.2-
Board of Revenue in Revision No.1518-2/2010, wherein an order dated
6.9.2010 passed by Additional Collector in Revision No.27/08-09 was
challenged and was dismissed on account of pendency of civil proceedings
between the parties. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated
23.9.2010 passed by Additional Commissioner, whereby while allowing the
revision preferred by present respondent no.6 the order of Additional
Collector dated 6.9.2010 passed in Revision No.27/08-09 was set aside,
whereby while setting aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated
15.6.2009 passed in Case No.54/08-09 was set aside whereby an interim
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1410
2 WP-3899-2017
order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, whereby stay was granted
on execution of the order passed by Tehsildar calling the Batankan report.
2. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner had placed before
this Court the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court in First
Appeal No.165/2016 dated 15.2.2021 and submitted that the suit for
injunction was decreed by learned Trial Court against which a second
appeal is pending before this Court, in such circumstances as there is no
stay order or order of injunction in the said appeal and since the suit filed
was only for permanent injunction and not for declaration of title the
proceedings before the revenue authority cannot be said to be bar, therefore,
it is submitted that the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities on an
interim application deserves to be quashed and the matter is required to be
remanded back to Sub Divisional Officer before whom the appeal at the
behest of present respondent no.6 is pending with a direction to decide the
appeal in accordance with law.
3. On the other hand Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Senior
counsel submits that though the suit was only for injunction but it has
bearing upon the very relief which has been claimed before the revenue
authorities and if the Second Appeal No.431/2021 preferred by the present
respondent no.6 which is pending before this Court is allowed then the very
proceedings before the revenue authorities would become redundant,
therefore, it was submitted that the present petition be dismissed on account
of pendency of second appeal.
4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record, this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1410
3 WP-3899-2017
court finds that the suit preferred by the present respondent no.6 was only
with regard to seeking permanent injunction which was dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 10.12.2015, and is challenged by the present
petitioner in the First Appeal No.165/2016, which was also dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 15.2.2021. Against which a Second Appeal
No.431/2021 is pending before this Court in which admittedly there is no
injunction in favour of the appellant.
5. Firstly on account of suit being only for permanent injunction and
secondly there is no order of any temporary injunction in favour of
appellant, this Court finds that there is no impediment for the revenue
authorities to carry out the batankan proceedings. Thus, this Court deems
it fit to direct S.D.O. to decide the appeal pending before it in accordance
with law. However, it is observed that effect of any order passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer shall be seen after final outcome of Second Appeal
No.431/2021. Accordingly, the order dated 18.11.2016 Annexure P/1 and
the order dated 23.9.2010 Annexure P/2 are hereby set aside.
6. With the aforesaid direction this petition is disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
(aspr)
