Madhya Pradesh High Court
Brajraj Singh (Deleted) Rajkumar Singh ... vs Jawahar Navoday Vidyalaya Birkhadi ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10012
1 WP-38451-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 38451 of 2024
BRAJRAJ SINGH (DELETED) RAJKUMAR SINGH KUSHWAH
Versus
JAWAHAR NAVODAY VIDYALAYA BIRKHADI TEHSIL RAUN
DISTRICT BHIND
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Bansal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
"That, in view of the facts and grounds mentioned in
the writ petition and further in view of the documents
annexed hereto, the humble petitioner prays that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition
quashing/setting aside the impugned order (Annexure P/1 )
passed by learned Board of Revenue and kindly restore the
order dtd. 30.12.2010 (Annexure P-12) in the interest of
justice."
2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of the land
bearing Survey No.612, ad-measuring 0.136 hectares (which was later on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10012
2 WP-38451-2024
converted into Survey No.1194, ad-measuring 0.14 after bandobast) situated
at Village Birkhadi, Tehsil Raun, District Bhind but since the entry of name
of respondent over the land in question was made in the revenue records, the
petitioner moved an application under Section 115-116 of the Madhya
Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tahsildar, Tehsil Raun,
District Bhind for correction of the entry made in the revenue records over
the land in question. Vide order dated 30.06.1997, the aforesaid application
was allowed and direction was issued to correct the entry and mutate the
name of the petitioner over the land in question in the revenue records. Being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent/School preferred an appeal
before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Lahar, District Bhind, which
was also dismissed vide order dated 30.09.1997. Against which, a second
appeal was preferred by the respondent/School before the Additional
Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, which was partly allowed
remitting the matter back to the Tahsildar to decide it afresh after allowing
the respondent/School to lead evidence as well as after giving proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. In pursuance to the remand
order of the Additional Commissioner, the learned Tahsildar proceeded to
decide the matter afresh and during the proceedings before it, an application
under Section 32 of the MPLRC read with Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was filed
by the respondent on 09.05.2000, which after due consideration, was
dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2000. Against dismissal of the aforesaid
application, the respondent preferred a revision before the Collector, District
Bhind, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2000.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10012
3 WP-38451-2024
3. In pursuance to the remand order, the Tahsildar after perusing the
evidence as well as the record, had passed an ex-parte order dated
10.07.2009 whereby direction was issued to delete the entry of the name of
the respondent from the revenue records over the land in question and mutate
the name of the petitioner thereon. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order,
the respondent preferred an appeal before the SDO, Lahar, District Bhind,
which was allowed vide order dated 30.06.2010 and the matter was once
again remanded back to the Tahsildar for its fresh consideration after giving
proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision
before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, which was
allowed vide order dated 30.12.2010 and the order of the SDO dated
30.06.2010 was set aside. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the respondent
preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide
order dated 06.02.2013 whereby the order of the Additional Commissioner,
dated 30.12.2010 was set aside and the order of the SDO dated 30.06.2010
was affirmed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been
petition has been filed.
5. From the aforesaid fact, it appears that the petitioner was originally
aggrieved by the remand order dated 30.06.2010 whereby the matter was
remitted back to the Tahsildar for its fresh consideration after giving proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is only a remand order
directing the Tahsildar to re-hear the matter after granting opportunity of
hearing to all the affected parties and pass a fresh order.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10012
4 WP-38451-2024
6. It is also observed from the order of the Tahsildar dated 10.07.2009
that in pursuance to the remand order, the Tahsilar after perusing the
evidence as well as the record, had passed an ex-parte order against the
respondent/School whereby directions were issued to delete its name from
the revenue records over the land in question and mutate the name of the
petitioner thereon, which goes to show that the respondent was the affected
party in the matter, and as it is a trite law that no orders which affect the
rights of a party should be passed without noticing him or providing
opportunity of hearing to him, and the principles of natural justice are
required to be followed and since that has not been done by the Tahsildar
while passing the order dated 10.07.2009, therefore, learned SDO as well as
the Board of Revenue were justified in passing the impugned orders dated
30.06.2010 and 06.02.2013. The order of the SDO dated 30.06.2010 is only a
remand order whereby direction was issued to the Tahsildar to re-hear the
matter after granting opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties and
pass a fresh order.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Anant Singh &
Another vs. Govind & Others reported in 1999 RN 99 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. Relevant paras of the
aforesaid judgment are quoted hereinbelow:
"3. Writ Court treated the petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution placing reliance on a Division Bench
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10012
5 WP-38451-2024
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."
8. In light of the aforesaid discussion as well as the judgment cited
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10012
6 WP-38451-2024
above, this Court finds that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as
the opportunity of hearing would be granted to the petitioner as well as to the
affected parties. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.02.2013
(Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior and the order
dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Lahar, District
Bhind whereby the matter was remitted back to the Tahsildar for its fresh
consideration after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned, need not to be interfered with and were affirmed
accordingly and the order dated 30.12.2010 passed by Additional
Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena is set aside. Hence, no case for
interference is made out. Petitioner can lead his evidence as per law. Parties
are directed to appear before the Tahsildar concerned on 05th June, 2025.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition is disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
