Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Subhash vs Sub Divisional Officer Revenue on 25 March, 2025
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7970
1 WA-586-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 586 of 2025
DR. SUBHASH
Versus
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rishiraj Trivedi - advocate for the appellant.
Shri Anand Soni - Additional Advocate General for the respondents
State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Gajendra Singh
This writ appeal filed under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchch
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred
challenging the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. No.3691 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has
been dismissed.
02. By this writ appeal, the petitioner is seeking the following
reliefs:-
"a). The Appeal may kindly be allowed and the order
dated 04/02/2025 passed in W.P No. 3691/2025 by the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7970
2 WA-586-2025
Writ Court (Annexure A/1) may kindly be modified to the extent
that the observations made by the Hon'ble Writ Court in para 04
of the impugned order may be expunged and;
b). The Appeal may kindly be allowed and the further
period of 15 days may be granted to the appellant to approach the
revisional authority from the date of disposal of this writ appeal.
c). Any other relief that the Hon'ble Court deems
appropriate. "
03. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed the petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order
dated16.01.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Badwah,
District Khargone arising out of the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the
Tehsildar, Tehsil Sanawad, District Khargone in proceedings under Section
248 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 on the ground that proceedings
have been finalized without calling any demarcation report.
04. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition observing that it
is not a mandatory condition that prior to passing of an order under Section
248 of the Code, 1959 demarcation should be carried out. If on the basis of
the available material illegal occupation is found then certainly order can be
passed. Further, liberty was granted to avail the alternate remedy available
under the law.
05. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that Writ Court
erred in granting period of fifteen days to approach the Revisional authority
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:7970
3 WA-586-2025
from the date of the impugned order ignoring that the original limitation
period of 45 days from the order of the SDO i.e 16.01.2025 was still running
on the date of impugned order. Hence, the appellant has preferred the
present writ appeal.
06. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State
submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is proper and no
interference is called for.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
08. Paragraph-7 of the impugned order does not limit the limitation
for filing the revision available to the petitioner. This period of fifteen days
could have operate if the period of filing the limitation was no more
available. The petitioner could not pointed out that there is a provision of
mandatory demarcation under Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1959. Hence, no illegality or perversity is found in the order
passed by the Writ Court. The learned Single was justified in dismissing the
writ petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the same.
09. The present Writ Appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed at the
admission stage itself.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
rashmi
