Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23177
1 WP-31235-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 14th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 31235 of 2024
PRADEEP KUMAR LAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Dilraj - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Mukund Agrawal - Government Advocate for State.
Shri Surdeep Khampariya - Advocate for intervenor.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of
India challenging order dated 25/09/2024 contained in Annexure P-6 passed
by Additional Commissioner, Sagar, Division Sagar under M.P. Land
Revenue Code, 1959 in Appeal No.752/2021-21.
2. Government Advocate appearing for State submitted that question
of maintainability of Miscellaneous Petition against an order passed by
revenue court was raised by High Court, Registry on basis of judgment dated
03.07.2024 passed in R.P. No.869/2021 (Babulal & Others Vs. Rajveer
Singh & Others). To overcome objection's advocates filed application for
conversion of miscellaneous petition in to writ petition and latter on writ
petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being filed to
challenge orders passed under M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Coordinate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23177
2 WP-31235-2024
Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No.4838/2024 vide its order
dated 13/09/2024 had referred the matter to larger Bench framing following
questions :-
a. Whether in view of Section 31 of MPLR Code
readwith the nature of jurisdiction conferred in terms of
section 257 thereof, Revenue Courts are "Courts" and
not mere quasi judicial authorities in view of Division
Bench judgment in case of Dangalia Vs. Deshraj,
reported in 1973 MPLJ 796 and whether the subsequent
Division Bench taking a different view in Babulal Vs.
Rajveer (RP 869/2021) has laid down the correct law ?
b. If Revenue Courts are Courts, then whether despite
not being a administratively subordinate Court to the
High Court under Article 235, the Revenue Courts are
judicially subordinate to the High Court in view of law
laid down by the Supreme Court in case of S.K. Sarkar,
Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow Vs. Vinay
Chandra reported in 1981 (1) SCC 436 ?
c. If yes, then whether a petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India will lie against the orders
passed by the Revenue Courts if in view of the 5 judge
Special Bench judgement of this Court in the case
Manoj Kumar Vs. Board of Revenue, reported in 2008
(1) MPLJ 152, looking to the nature of relief sought
from the High Court, supervisory jurisdiction of the
High Court is otherwise invocable ?
3. It is submitted by Government Advocate appearing for State that
since issue whether petition under Article 226 or under Article 227 of
Constitution of India will be maintainable against an order passed under
M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before Larger Bench, therefore, hearing of
case be deferred.
4. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that hearing of matter
may not be deferred as petitioner has filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India in accordance with order dated 03/07/2024 passed by
Division Bench in R. P.No.869/2021.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23177
3 WP-31235-2024
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Question before this Court for consideration is whether Writ Petition
under Article 226 of Constitution of India or Writ Petition under Article 227
of Constitution of India will lie against an order passed by revenue
authorities.
7. Division Bench of this Court in R.P No.869/2021 in Para 10 has
held as under :-
"10. The judgment which has been relied upon deals
with the issue wherein the orders passed by the
Registrar and the Revisional Authority were scrutinized
under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed
thereunder and in that context it was held that the
powers exercised by the writ court was under Article
227 of the Constitution which was supervisory in
nature, but herein case the order impugned before the
writ court was passed by Board of Revenue and
admittedly the revenue authorities are not Subordinate
Court or Tribunal to the High Court and therefore, the
orders passed under the provisions of MPLRC are liable
to be challenged only by writ petition filed under 226 of
the Constitution of India and not by way of petition
under Article 227."
8. On going through aforesaid order it is found that Division Bench
held that admittedly revenue authorities are not subordinate Court or tribunal
to the High Court, therefore, the order passed under the provisions of M.P.
Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "MPLRC, 1959") are
liable to be challenged only by Writ Petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India and not by way of petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India. What was the reasoning given by Division Bench for
holding that revenue authorities are not subordinate Court or tribunal to High
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23177
4 WP-31235-2024
Court has not been mentioned in the order. It is the ratio of the decision
which is binding on Courts. No ratio has been mentioned in judgment dated
03/07/2024 that why revenue authorities are not subordinate to the High
Court.
9. In case of Dangalia Vs. Deshraj, reported in 1973 MPLJ
796, Division Bench of this Court held that Section 31 of MPLRC, 1959
confers status of Courts on the Revenue Board and Officers. Revenue
officers while exercising their power under the code or any other enactment
which is in force enquire into and decide question between parties and State
Government or between any person or between parties to any proceedings,
therefore, revenue officers acts as Court. It is also held that Section 32 of the
Code provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such
orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of
the process of the Court. Division Bench further held that Section 33 of the
Code empowers revenue authorities to apply Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
subject to provision of 132 and 133 of the Code. Revenue officers were held
to be having power to take evidence, summons any person, to give evidence
in witness and produce document for purpose of enquiry. Further Section 43
of Code provides that procedure laid down in CPC shall be followed.
Division Bench also took note of Section 55 of MPLRC, 1959. It was held
that aforesaid provision's constitute revenue Court as full-fledged Courts,
which would be governed by special provision of MPLRC, 1959 and in
absence of such provision, procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23177
5 WP-31235-2024
1908 is to be adopted.
10. However, Division Bench in case of Dangalia (supra) does not
specifically answers the question whether petition under Article 226 or 227
of Constitution of India will be maintainable against an order passed by
revenue Courts.
11. Supreme Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra
Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 in Para-51 has held as under :-
"51. It is well settled that a writ petition is a remedy in
public law which may be filed by any person but the
main respondent should be either Government,
Governmental agencies or a State or instrumentalities of
a State within the meaning of Article 12. Private
individuals cannot be equated with State or
instrumentalities of the State. All the respondents in a
writ petition cannot be private parties. But private
parties acting in collusion with State can be respondents
in a writ petition. Under the phraseology of Article 226,
High Court can issue writ to any person, but the person
against whom writ will be issued must have some
statutory or public duty to perform."
12. Full Bench of this Court in case of Manoj Kumar Vs. Board of
Revenue and others, (2008) 1 MPLJ 152 and AIR 2008 MP 22 held that
exercise of supervisory or superintendence power cannot be equated with
original or supervisory jurisdiction. Proceeding under Article 226 of
Constitution of India are in exercise of original jurisdiction of High Court,
whereas proceeding initiated under Article 227 of Constitution of India are
supervisory in nature.
13. Article 227 of constitution of India is quoted as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23177
6 WP-31235-2024
"227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the
High Court.-- (1) Every High Court shall have
superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
provision, the High Court may--
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and
prescribe forms for regulating the practice
and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries
and accounts shall be kept by the officers of
any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be
allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such
courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders
practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or
tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be
inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time
being in force, and shall require the previous approval
of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on
a High Court powers of superintendence over any court
or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to
the Armed Forces."
14. As per aforesaid Article High Court has power of superintendence
all Courts situated within the territories over which High Court exercises its
jurisdiction.
15. Revenue Courts are conferred status of Court by Section 31 of
M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and Division bench judgment in case of
Dangalia (supra) has given it stamp of approval.
16. Division Bench in R.P. No.869/2021 has held that admittedly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23177
7 WP-31235-2024
revenue authorities are not subordinate Court or tribunal to the High Court.
However no reasoning has been assigned for holding so. On the contrary
Apex Court in case of S. K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow
Vs. Vinay Chandra, 1981 (1) SCC 436 while interpretating word 'courts
subordinate to it' as occurring in Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act held
that phrase 'courts subordinate to it' used in Section 10 is wide enough to
include all Courts which are judicially subordinate to the High Court, even
though administrative control over them under Article 235 of the
Constitution does not vest in the High Court. Under Article 227 of the
Constitution the High Court has power of superintendence over all Courts
and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction. Board of revenue in that case is a Court 'subordinate to the High
Court' within contemplation of Section 10 of the Act.
17. Judgment passed by Apex Court in S. K. Sarkar (supra) was in
respect of State of Uttar Pradesh. Act which was applicable in State of Uttar
Pradesh when judgment was passed in case of S. K.Sarkar (supra) was
United Provinces Land Revenue Code, 1901. Definition of Revenue Court is
quoted as under :-
"राज व यायालय का ता पय िन निल खत सभी या
क ह ािधका रय अथात ् प रष एवं उसके सभी सद य
आयु , अित र आयु , कले टर, अित र कले टर,
सहायक कले टर, बंदोब त अिधकार , सहायक बंदोब त
अिधकार , अिभलेख अिधकार , सहायक अिभलेख अिधकार
तथा तहसीलदार से है "
18. Thereafter, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was brought into force and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23177
8 WP-31235-2024
definition of revenue Code has been mentioned in Section 4(16), which is
quoted as under :-
4(16) - Revenue Court" means all or any of the
following authorities (that is to say) the Board and all
members thereof. Commissioners. Additional
Commissioners, Collectors, Additional Collectors,
Chief Revenue Officers, Assistant Collectors,
Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers,
Record Officers, Assistant Record Officers, Tahsildars,
Tahsildars (Judicial) and Naib Tahsildars.
19. Section 31 of MPLRC, 1959 is quoted as under :
"31. Conferral of Status of Courts on Board and
Revenue Officers. - The Board or a Revenue Officer,
while exercising power under this Code or any other
enactment for the time being in force to enquire into or
to decide any question arising for determination
between the State Government and any person or
between parties to any proceedings, shall be a Revenue
Court."
20. In State of Uttar Pradesh as well as in the State of Madhya Pradesh
the Board of Revenue Officers were conferred status of Court, therefore,
provisions are pari materia and judgment passed by Apex Court in case
related to State of U.P. will also cover the issue in question before this Court.
21. Aforesaid order passed by Apex Court clearly held that revenue
Court is Court subordinate to the High Court. Since, it has already been held
by Apex Court in case of S. K. Sarkar (supra) that board of revenue is a
Court subordinate to High Court, therefore, orders passed by board of
revenue or by other revenue officers can be examined by High Court
exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of Constitution of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23177
9 WP-31235-2024
India and not under Article 226 of Constitution of India. High Court
exercises in original jurisdiction while issuing prerogative writs under
Article 226 of Constitution of India. A writ of certiorari will lie to quash an
order which is passed by quasi judicial authorities, which is not a subordinate
Court to High Court.
22. Prerogative writs under Article 226 are public law remedy and is
available when order is passed by Union of India or by State or by
instrumentalities of State or by any authority covered under Article 12 of
Constitution of India. Such remedies will not be available to decide civil
dispute between two individuals or private rights of the parties. As an
exception prerogative right of habeas corpus can be issued against a private
person, but not in other cases. Orders can be passed by High Court
exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of Constitution of
India for quashing orders passed by revenue officials or issuing judicial
direction to them exercising such power as said officials are conferred the
status of Court under Section 31 of MPLRC, 1959.
23. In view of aforesaid it is clear that division Bench of this Court
while passing orders in R.P.No.869/2021 did not consider the judgment
passed by earlier Division Bench in case of Dangalia (supra) and orders
passed by Apex Court in case of S. K. Sarkar (supra). Further no reasoning
has been given why revenue authorities are not subordinate Court or tribunal
to the High Court.
24. Judgment passed by Apex Court in case of S. K. Sarkar, Member,
Board of Revenue, Lucknow Vs. Vinay Chandra, 1981 (1) SCC 436 covers
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:23177
10 WP-31235-2024
the issue in question. Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India
will lie against order passed by Board of Revenue or Commissioner in
second appeal or in revision or under other provisions of MPLRC, 1959.
25. Petition is disposed off granting liberty to petitioner to prefer
petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
26. Registry is directed not to point out defect if a petition challenging
order passed under M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is challenged under
Article 227 of Constitution of India.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
as
