CHHOTELAL GUPTA Vs. SEEMA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was applicant before the initial Court of Superintendent of Land Record Chhatarpur, has filed this petition under Article 226 (the same appears to be under Article 227) of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 24.5.2013 (Ann. P.8) passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 3126-II/12, whereby instead to decide the interlocutory question involved in such revision the entire case was decided on merits while such revision was filed only against the interim order dated 31.7.2012 (Ann. P.6) passed by the Additional Collector, Chhatarpur in revenue appeal No.160/Appeal/A-6-A/2011-12, whereby his application dated 31.7.2012 (Ann. P-5) challenging the locusstandi of the respondent No.1 to file such appeal was kept pending with a direction that same be considered along with final hearing of such appeal, which was remained pending before the Additional Collector, Chhatarpur till deciding the impugned revision.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 109 and 110 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code (In short "the Code"), in the Court of Superintendent of Land Records, Chhatarpur for mutation of his name in the revenue record of disputed land. Undisputedly, respondent No.1 herein has not been impleaded as party before such authority. On consideration by allowing such application by the superintendent of Land Record vide dated 18.11.2009 (Ann. P.1) the name of the petitioner was directed to be mutated in the revenue record of disputed land. On coming to know about such order the respondent No.1 has filed the aforesaid appeal bearing No.160/A-6-A/11-12, under Section 44 (1) of the Code along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the same in the Court of Additional Collector Chhatarpur. On consideration, such application of Section 5 of Limitation Act was allowed vide order dated 20.6.2012 (Ann. P.3) and the alleged delay was condoned and the appeal was posted for final arguments. Such order was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Board of Revenue by way of Revision No.2005-II/12 but on consideration by affirming the order of the Additional Collector such revision was dismissed vide order dated 10.7.2012 (Ann. P.4).

(3.) Subsequent to aforesaid on behalf of the present petitioner on 31.7.2012 an application (Ann. P.5) to challenge the locus-standi of the respondent No.1 to file the appeal under Section 44 (1) of the Code was filed, as she being not the party before the Superintendent of Land Record could not file the appeal without permission of the appellate Court. But on hearing instead to decide such application on merits the same was kept pending with a direction to hear the same at the time of final hearing of such appeal. Against such order the present petitioner approached the Board of Revenue with impugned revision No.3126/II/12 to set aside such order with appropriate direction to the appellate Court to consider the aforesaid application first and subject to out come of the same on arising the occasion to hear and decide the appeal on merits but on consideration instead to decide such question raised in the revision taking into consideration some earlier decision of this Court in the matter of Sudan Singh Vs. State of M. P. and another, 1986 MPLJ 362, the entire case was decided on merits, before deciding the aforesaid pending appeal by the appellate authority the Additional Collector, and pursuant to such order subordinate authorities were directed to score out the name of the petitioner from the revenue record and mention the name of respondent No.1 in such record, on which the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition.