POORANLAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.5 filed an application before the Collector seeking permission to plant the trees on the land of the petitioner. The learned Collector rejected the said application. Aggrieved, the said respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Commissioner which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed on 14.03.2016. The private respondent did not implead the present petitioner in the said revision. Therefore, the petitioner by filing a revision (Annexure P/7) brought this fact to the notice of the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by a cryptic order dated 05.12.2016 rejected the review application by holding that the necessary ingredients to attract Section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ('Code') are not satisfied.

(2.) Shri Yadav argued that there is no iota of discussion as to why non impleadment of necessary party in the revision cannot be a ground for revision. If an error is apparent on the face of the record is pointed out, it certainly attracts Section 51 (2)(b)(c) of the Code.

(3.) Shri Sharma, learned Deputy A.G. supported the impugned order.