Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indrapal Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13317
1 WP-13965-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 1 st OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13965 of 2025
INDRAPAL SINGH SIKARWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ram Krishna Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
preferred against the order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the
Additional Commissioner Chambal Division, Morena in revision
No.241/Appeal/2023-24, whereby the Additional Commissioner without
considering the fact that the civil suit is pending between the parties before
the civil Court, had upheld the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by SDO.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order
on the ground that the petitioner had filed an application u/s 178 of MPLRC
1959 for partition of the property situated in Mauja Gormi, Mauja Gopalpur
and Mauja Ghilaua. A Fird Batwara has prepared by the Patwari in the
presence of parties and accordingly property was partitioned between the
parties, therefore, the respondents had left no right over the property but the
appellate court has not considered this aspect. It is not in dispute that the civil
suit is also filed by the respondent No.3 but no stay is granted in his favour,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13317
2 WP-13965-2025
but the SDO has not considered the Patwari report and Fird Batwara and had
remanded the matter without any reason, therefore, the impugned order as
well as the order of SDO Annexure P/2 are liable to be set aside. On the
basis of aforesaid arguments, it is submitted that present petition be allowed
and the order impugned be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the
Additional Commissioner for fresh adjudication.
3. On the other hand, K.K. Prajapati, learned Govt. Advocate submits
that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer in allowing the appeal and remanding the matter, as no rights of the
parties have been adjudicated by him. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have
been caused to the petitioner, which could lead to any interference by this
Court. It is also submitted that learned Additional Commissioner had also not
committed any perversity in dismissing the second appeal on similar lines.
To bolster his submissions he has placed reliance in the matter of Anant
Singh & Another vs. Govind & Others reported in 1999 RN 99, wherein the
Division Bench of this Court has held that order of remand passed by the
Board of Revenue or the revenue authority will not be set aside in the
petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as the same does
not affect the rights of any person.
4. Heard.
5. Relevant paras of the judgment passed by Division Bench in the
matter of Anant Singh & Another vs. Govind & Others (supra) are quoted
hereinbelow:
"3. Writ Court treated the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution placing reliance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:13317
3 WP-13965-2025
on a Division Bench judgment of this Court (1998 (2) JLJ 49 - 1998 (1) MPLJ 196)
dismissed the writ petition holding that the impugned order being a remand order called
for no interference.
7. .........It appears to us useless to examine the controversy whether appellant's W.P. No.
1284/94 was a petition under Article 227 only or both under Article 226 and 227 and
whether writ Court was competent to treat it under Article 226 or 227. This is so because
appellant's writ petition stands dismissed primarily on the ground that no interference was
warranted against the remand order passed by the Revenue Board. As such the issue about
the application of Article 226 or 227 pales in the insignificance and is not required to be
scrutinised.
Therefore, without dilating on the technical issues raised and appreciating the crux of the
judgment passed by the writ Court, we find ourselves in complete agreement with a view
taken by that Court. After all nothing stands decided by the Board in favour of either party
and if it had found the matter surrounded by none-too-happy circumstances, it was well
within its right to call for a fresh enquiry by the S.D.O. This was not liable to cause any
prejudice to either party and if appellants believed in the merit of their case they should
face the enquiry instead of shying away from it."
6. After hearing rival contentions and going through the judgement
cited by the counsel for the respondent/State, this Court is of the opinion that
since no rights have been adjudicated upon of the parties, the challenge to
the said order passed by Additional Commissioner in affirming the order of
remand passed by Sub Divisional Officer appears to be not justified.
7. Accordingly, the present petition being sans merits is hereby
dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
