AJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenges the order of Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) dated 12.02.2007 (Annexure P/4). Challenge is also made to the order of Commissioner dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure P/1) whereby revision of the petitioner against the order dated 12.07.2007 was rejected on the ground that Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to deal with the same

(2.) SHRI Pradeep Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner, has advanced singular contention. He submits that an order dated 16.12.2001 (Annexure P/2) was passed in his favour by the Nayab Tehsildar. Certain persons, who were not party to the adjudication before Nayab Tehsildar, preferred an appeal No. 26 / 2005 06/ before Sub Divisional Officer (SDO). Their appeal was rejected by the order dated 22.02.2006. Thereafter another set of persons, who were also not party to the litigation before Nayab Tehsildar, preferred an appeal No.129/05 - 06/Appeal which was allowed by order dated 12.02.2007 (Annexure P/4). 3. The bone of contention of Shri Shrivastava is that SDO has erred in allowing the another appeal preferred by Ramesh and others. Once an appeal preferred by Hari Singh is rejected, it was not open to the SDO to take a different view. No other point is pressed by him.

(3.) PER Contra, Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, Govt. Advocate supported the order. She submits that reasons for rejecting the appeal dated 22.02.2006 are different which has no binding effect on subsequent adjudication which resulted into passing of Annexure P/4.By taking this Court to the Revenue Department memorandum dated 02.05.2003, it is submitted that the Commissioner has rightly rejected the revision for want of jurisdiction.